My premise is that GW has never publicly stated that their FAQs are unofficial. It's a myth circulated and most people do not bother to find out for themselves which is often the case unfortunately. If you believe that the FAQs are indeed unofficial please cite your reference. A quote would be very much appreciated!

Thanks!

Afrikan Blonde wrote:My premise is that GW has never publicly stated that their FAQs are unofficial. It's a myth circulated and most people do not bother to find out for themselves which is often the case unfortunately. If you believe that the FAQs are indeed unofficial please cite your reference. A quote would be very much appreciated!

Thanks!

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=1000018&pIndex=2&aId=3400019&_requestid=339942

ERRATA & FAQs
Welcome to the Errata & FAQs section of our website. Here you can find the latest Errata & FAQs documents for our current books in the form of downloadable pdf documents.

In this section we cover Warhammer Fantasy Battle, Warhammer 40,000 and The Lord of the Rings Strategy Battle Game. We aim to have one pdf for each book belonging to these systems, including the three main rulebooks and all Warhammer Armies books, Warhammer 40,000 Codexes, and The Lord of the Rings Journey Books and Sourcebooks. If a book is not covered, it is either because we are not aware of any issues with it or we haven't got to it yet.

We aim to publish a first document within the first few months of a book's release. After this initial release, we'll review and update these documents regularly, adding new questions and errata, and correcting any mistakes we might have made when answering some of the questions.

What's the difference between Errata and FAQs?
As it is rather obvious from their name, these documents include two separate elements - the Errata and the FAQs. In case you were wondering, 'Errata' is a posh (Latin!) way to say 'Errors', and 'FAQs' stands for 'Frequently Asked Questions'. It is important to understand the distinction between the two, because they are very different.

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!). These are obviously errors, for example a model that has WS3 in the book's bestiary and WS4 in the book's army list. The Errata would say something like: 'Page 96. Replace WS3 with WS4 in the profile of the so-and-so model'.

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.

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). 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 fact we encourage you to shape the game around your needs and your taste. We firmly believe that wargaming is about two (or more!) people creating a gaming experience they are both going to enjoy. 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.

- Games Development, November 2008

House Rules are not Official Rules. That'll be US$900 for labour please. Also, why multiple choice poll? Oh Well -Votes for all-

Afrikan Blonde wrote:My premise is that GW has never publicly stated that their FAQs are unofficial. It's a myth circulated and most people do not bother to find out for themselves which is often the case unfortunately. If you believe that the FAQs are indeed unofficial please cite your reference. A quote would be very much appreciated!

Thanks!

Yet you're wrong. GW has publicly stated that they are NOT official [and I was wrong earlier it's not in the rulebook I don't think, it's up on the website where they talk about what a FAQ should be used for]. Go check it out.

For the record, I voted that they are official - I'll play my game the way the creators of the game play it, the ones that wrote the rules. If the guy that created checkers told me he played the game a different way, I'd toss the checkers rulebook aside and play it his way, rather than slap it like some kind of monkey saying "RAW! RAW! MUST PLAY BY RAW!"

The rules of 40k exist to create a common ground with which players can play the game. The book clearly says that it encourages creativity and house rules. "The only way to play fairly is by RAW" is a flawed argument because as long as people are having fun, who cares? Maybe for tournaments you need more concrete rulings, but TOs often pick and choose their own interpretations anyway, and often choose GW FAQs for their rulings - and we all know you can't argue with a TO in their own house.

So who cares? If you and your mates think that flubbing RAW to make the game more fun is cool, then do it. And if you're TFG at your game store that's slamming his book over people's heads to get them to do it RAW just because IT'S THE RIGHT WAY DAMMIT! then you're just going to alienate yourself.


From the quoted material:

In fact we encourage you to shape the game around your needs and your taste. We firmly believe that wargaming is about two (or more!) people creating a gaming experience they are both going to enjoy. 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.


When Gwar! and I play, I'd demand we roll a dice to see which interpretation of, for instance, Njal's stormcaller ability we'd use. And if he didn't want to do that, we wouldn't play a game. And that's not because I don't like Gwar!. He has his perfectly valid reasons for being VERY resolute about RAW. And I, on the other hand, prefer the power to be useful as I think it was intended, and don't think the game's any fun if the winner of the dice roll can cause him to lose two of his very powerful abilities by choosing to make the SW player go second. So when it came down to it, I wouldn't back down and neither would he. In a tournament situation, we'd ask the TO, who would probably go by what the FAQ said.

It's worth noting, though, that UNLESS there was an FAQ, he'd probably go with Gwar!'s RAW ruling.

Bah Gwar, I had almost the same thing already to go. Boo you.

House rules are not official, therefore FAQs aren't.

Eternal Newb wrote:Bah Gwar, I had almost the same thing already to go. Boo you.

House rules are not official, therefore FAQs aren't.

I are l33t Ninja Trolle. Hear me NERDRAGE!

The FAQs that are on GW's own website? I've never heard anyone who says that they are not official, They are there to clarify game mechanics, what kind of rules abusing idiot would clam other wise?

I would say the vast, vast, VAST majority follow the FAQs, but it's common knowledge that they aren't hard rules.














Vast.

Curses wrong place! Ignore this!

GW did not say they are not official. They said they help to deal with grey areas and they encourage their use at tournaments. Errata on the other hand simply deal with clerical errors that are simple to correct.

wolf40k wrote:The FAQs that are on GW's own website? I've never heard anyone who says that they are not official, They are there to clarify game mechanics, what kind of rules abusing idiot would clam other wise?

Because house rules are not official.

Are FLGS treats them as official asstupid asgwis they made the game its there rules if they fix a problem with an faq even its not what you thought its how they ment it to be played which is what we were all aiming for playing the rules correct.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:GW did not say they are not official. They said they help to deal with grey areas and they encourage their use at tournaments. Errata on the other hand simply deal with clerical errors that are simple to correct.

House Rules ARE NOT official Rules.

If they are, I house Rule that you will now always lose on a 2D6 roll of 2 or more and you must play with it, because it is official.

With the appropriate negative modifiers, of course.

I think the FAQS can be a helpful thing tho. I think everyone should read through them, specially for their own armies. Mainly because they point out mistakes they put in the codex that most people miss. Example Said stat on page whatever is actually meant to be like stat on page this one.

That can screw ya up if you use the stats from one certain page but its wrong

Hell, there's a House Rule right INSIDE the BRB, and no-one claim that's RaW...because it clearly isn't.

Saying FAQs are RaW is like saying Tomatoes are a Vegetable. Just because most people cook (play) like they are, doesn't mean they magically become one.

FAQ's are official.

You should have an "other" category. Our crew play them as official, but in my opinion, the are conditional on the codicies that are out. A great example are the army specific questions at the end of the BRB FAQ. With the release of the new IG codex, the FAQ no longer applies, but it is not updated to reflect, but other than that, I play that they are official.

Its pretty depressing that GW need to release faqs in the first place.

And further more , its even more depressing when GW is afraid to call it official because they know the faqs are poorly written as well.

LunaHound wrote:
Its pretty depressing that GW need to release faqs in the first place.

And further more , its even more depressing when GW is afraid to call it official because they know the faqs are poorly written as well.

Every game system, nay, every system ever conceived has an FAQ. Does that make all of life depressing? I think not. I think it's refreshing that the designers choose to share their thoughts with us on how it ought to be played. I just wish they'd do it a little bit more often and have a more open forum, like Magic the Gathering or even Privateer Press.

whitedragon wrote:FAQ's are official.

Yay Facts!




Oh...

I use them, but I don't consider them to be anything more than house rules... because that's what GW says they are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spellbound wrote: If the guy that created checkers told me he played the game a different way, I'd toss the checkers rulebook aside and play it his way,

What if the way the rulebook says to play it is better?

Your confusing the word 'official' with the appropriate term for rules, which would be 'mandatory'.

They are official because GW published them. They are not mandatory in the sense that what is printed in the rule books are mandatory*. Most players treat them as mandatory rules by choice, but GW themselves clearly state you don't have to use their interpretations.

It seems rather ridiculous to me to ignore the explanations from the writer, especially in a game where the printed writing is known to be ambiguous in places. I won't say it's ambiguous on purpose, but it is purposely not tightened to the standard of a typical games rules. People that refuse to use FAQ answers are not wrong. Misguided, in my opinion, but not wrong.





*Rules in the rulebook aren't mandatory either actually, we are told we can ignore whatever we want. All of these rules are just a framework, not a book of laws to lawyer over and legislate the game with.

Explanations from the writer? I don't know which FAQs you're talking about.

I follow the FAQ fairly closely, but they are not "official". Hence my lack of a vote in the poll.

I treat them as official solely because everyone else does.

RAW is that the "rules aren't all that important" so following strict RAW is against the RAW!

Official? No.

What they are good for (mostly) is achieving some kind of working solution - when there are multiple equally valid interpretations of the way a rule is worded.

There are some significant flaws in them, and they're not nearly comprehensive or updated enough to be considered 'official'.

EDIT: Excising cruddy grammar.

Kaaihn wrote:People that refuse to use FAQ answers are not wrong. Misguided, in my opinion, but not wrong.

Given GW's track record for contradictory, inconsistent, poorly thought out or just downright odd FAQ answers, I think that would really depend entirely on what those people are doing instead.

Choosing to disregard an FAQ response you don't like in favour of playing it in a way that you feel to be better for the game is (IMO) the exact opposite of 'misguided'...



For a personal case in point, back in 3rd or 4th edition (honestly can't remember which off the top of my head) GW ruled in their Ork FAQ that attack squigs should be represented by a separate model. At that particular point in time the only model they produced with an attack squig had it sculpted directly onto the model's arm.

So we very quickly decided around here that the FAQ answer was dodgy, and ignored it. My Stormboyz nob still has his attack squig mounted on his rokkit pack, although it's going to have to either come off or count as something else under the current codex... :(


I did the same with the Guard answer from the last codex, that suggested that for heavy weapons teams you should pretend there was a normal 25mm base under each model. Adding this rule was clunky and uneccessary, since they already functioned perfectly well under the existing rules. That FAQ answer was fine for those who struggled to figure out how the teams worked within the existing rules and just wanted an easy (if somewhat inelegant) fix, but made no sense to those who had been playing them as is for more than 5 years at that point...


So, at the end of the day, the FAQ's are best treated as what they are: suggestions for house rules to cover situations that GW aren't prepared to issue errata for.

Timmah wrote:I treat them as official solely because everyone else does.

I don't, not do a number of people voting in this poll.

What is your source for your claim "everyone else does."

insaniak sums it up nicely.

The FAQs would be great guidance text except that they directly contradict the rules on too many occassions.

Personally, I do tend to use them when they aren't too egregious simply because they're common ground on some of the dodgy rules issues (I say some because there are many issues that the FAQs have not addressed).

Gwar! wrote:

Afrikan Blonde wrote:GW did not say they are not official. They said they help to deal with grey areas and they encourage their use at tournaments. Errata on the other hand simply deal with clerical errors that are simple to correct.

House Rules ARE NOT official Rules.

If they are, I house Rule that you will now always lose on a 2D6 roll of 2 or more and you must play with it, because it is official.

okay I have successfully debunked the myth that GW stated their FAQs are not official, they never said that.

They (GW) states their FAQs are Studio House Rules as a figure of speech. I know you do not like their FAQs but to me it's just plain wrong to mislead people like you do so often.

Yeah, funny how a majority still think they are not official.

A very small majority and I'm sure a lot more people will vote today.

Insaniak said himself he does not use the FAQs because they don't suit his needs. To me that attitude rightly sums up people in general who do not regard FAQs as official.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:A very small majority and I'm sure a lot more people will vote today.

Yeah I can so see how 21% is a "very small majority".

Why would GW even bother if they aren't official. They are the correct interpretations of hard to understand rules. If someone can't understand a rule and someone tells them how it works how can that not be official? Saying FAQs are to be ignored at your own discretion is akin to saying "I don't know what the counterattack rule does, so I'll assume it makes all my models S10 T10 W10 I10 A10."
Unfortunately that's not how it works. FAQ are there to tell you how it actually is.

Also of note is the DH FAQ in which is says GKLR have power of the machine spirit and assault vehicle or something. Does this mean they actually do not and are contrary to all other LR in the Imperium? If the FAQ are unofficial then there would be no point in putting that in there, as people would either ignore it anyway or be already using these rules for the LR. Maybe GW doesn't say expressly that they are official but most people would support that they are.

GW are a business, they don't go around spending $$$ on an FAQ simply because they are bored.

There's just no way to take the FAQs seriously. They're an equal mixture of reinforcing what the RAW says, completely contradicting the rules and confirming the rules in cases where it's perfectly clear to begin with. Occasionally they manage to do two at once and contradict rules that were perfectly clear.

They're useful as a dispute solver somtimes simply because they're impartial common ground. Other than that, waste of space.

Madgod wrote:Why would GW even bother if they aren't official. They are the correct interpretations of hard to understand rules.

So what about the ones that are incorrect interpretations of very easy to understand rules?

Afrikan Blonde wrote:Insaniak said himself he does not use the FAQs because they don't suit his needs.

Er... no, I didn't.

I said I do use them. I just disregard specific FAQ answers that I don't agree are the best way to play the game. (And no, that has nothing to do with whether or not the answer I dislike directly benefits my own army. I play too many different armies for that sort of nonsense to be in any way useful... )


To me, whether or not the FAQs are 'official' is far less important than whether the way they say to play the game is the way that the group I game with think the game will be the most fun.

So, as long as the FAQs give sensible answers, we'll go along with them just fine. But we feel no qualms whatsoever about following the designers' stated intention that the players should feel free to modify the game to suit themselves.

They are yes, as they are rules clarifications etc, its annoying as they usually get printed in a white dwarf and count as official even though anyone with any sense wouldn't buy it even for novelty toilet paper

This was backed up years ago by a staff member in a GW who informed people that yes they were.

insaniak wrote:
I said I do use them. I just disregard specific FAQ answers that I don't agree are the best way to play the game. (And no, that has nothing to do with whether or not the answer I dislike directly benefits my own army. I play too many different armies for that sort of nonsense to be in any way useful... )

So, as long as the FAQs give sensible answers, we'll go along with them just fine.

Oh snap, this is what I do!

I follow the FAQs where they either:
Reinforce the RaW
Clarify genuinely unclear Rules

I do not follow them when:
They directly ignore Clear (albeit "unintended") RaW outside of the Errata.

Regardless of this, they are still house rules, and are not official by any means. If they were official, GW would have said "These are official Clarifications" instead of "These be house rules".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vermillion wrote:This was backed up years ago by a staff member in a GW who informed people that yes they were.

Wow, a Staff member in GW? Amazing! I also am a Staff member in GW. So is my Dog. I am also the Queen of Canada!

What does it matter how "official" FAQs are?
If you are playing people you know, you can argue amongst yourselves (preferably pre-game) about how to play (we do this all the time, even with games that have no FAQ! And we change rules, make house rules, scenarios, etc.)
Tournaments will produce their own rules.
Most people who can find the FAQ are capable of asking their opponent how they want to play.
If you don't like your opponents way of playing, you have 3 options. Play it his way. Get him to play it your way. Don't play. If it is someone you will play again, you can say "we play it your way this time, my way next time, OK?"
If it is someone you won't play again, it doesn't matter much.

Madgod wrote:Also of note is the DH FAQ in which is says GKLR have power of the machine spirit and assault vehicle or something. Does this mean they actually do not and are contrary to all other LR in the Imperium?

I'd say that's a pretty bad example since by that FAQ's own interpretation only the heavy support selection of GKLR get PotMS and Assault Ramps where the Inquisition dedicated transport ones from the same book do not, "contrary to all other LR in the Imperium".

I'm with the majority of people, FAQs are by no means official. They can definitely be seen as "Well, this is one way to interpret this rule, what do you think?" More often than not, yes, it makes sense and is an agreeable way to proceed with whatever ruling came into question and in which case the game continues. That does not make it an official ruling, it does give an interpretation that most people can agree upon and it does not come from a biased party (either of the players or a favorites-playing TO).

I treat them as official, unless they are found to contradict something or be in error. As Gwar! has pointed out before, the Ork FAQ for additional DCCWs on a Deff Dread is wrong, since it ignores the benefit of the additional DCCW the model starts with.

The purpose of an FAQ is to clarify, amend and fix up a piece of the official rules which was badly written enough in the first place to need fixing. As such, it must necessarily have the force of a rule. Whatever GW say, an FAQ list is nothing to do with house rules, which are local changes made for a variety of reasons, including to fix broken stuff, and are called house rules or ground rules.

GW though, do not admit that their rules are flawed in that way, nor do they recognise or admit that their FAQs are often just as flawed. That is why they bill the FAQs as vague suggestions.

It's a nonsense attitude which simply perpetuates the rotten arguments about rule interpretation.

Exactly and very well said.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:Exactly and very well said.

And yet still people, despite you "debunking" this "myth", still clearly think the FAQ's ara a steaming pile. Glad to know most Dakkaites know what they are doing

Greetings,

I am curious to know how it is 'official' is being used in this post?

Are you using it to mean 'comes from GW'?

Or are you using it to mean 'counts as rules'?

My vote does depend on what meaning you're proscribing to your poll.

Gwar! wrote:

Afrikan Blonde wrote:Exactly and very well said.

And yet still people, despite you "debunking" this "myth", still clearly think the FAQ's ara a steaming pile. Glad to know most Dakkaites know what they are doing

Isn't that what killkrazy said?

House rules are "local changes made for a variety of reasons, including to fix broken stuff"

FAQs are " to clarify, amend and fix up a piece of the official rules which was badly written enough in the first place to need fixing"

Sounds like pretty much the same thing to me.

He went on to say "GW though, do not admit that their rules are flawed in that way, nor do they recognise or admit that their FAQs are often just as flawed. That is why they bill the FAQs as vague suggestions. " I'd say that could be shortened to "the FAQs are a steaming pile".

Thor665 wrote:Greetings,

I am curious to know how it is 'official' is being used in this post?

Are you using it to mean 'comes from GW'?

Or are you using it to mean 'counts as rules'?

My vote does depend on what meaning you're proscribing to your poll.

This!

He means "Counts as Rules".

Even I know they come from GW ffs.

That would have been my presumption - but to claim he has 'debunked' that they aren't official suggests that neither proposition is how he's defining official since both are equally obviously true. Still, I don't care to vote until I'm certain about the question being asked.

I think everybody knows that they aren't official rulings since GW says so on the download page...

However, I voted for "Yes" because all the tournaments that I've been to use the FAQs as if they where (official rullings), so I might as well use them for my friendly games as well.

Gwar! wrote:

Afrikan Blonde wrote:Exactly and very well said.

And yet still people, despite you "debunking" this "myth", still clearly think the FAQ's ara a steaming pile. Glad to know most Dakkaites know what they are doing

Most people will tell you that YMDC is a mere shadow of its former self. I have heard it said this is the forum where "TFG come to BS the rules". To see that so many clearly see the FAQs as official is telling.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Afrikan Blonde wrote:Exactly and very well said.

And yet still people, despite you "debunking" this "myth", still clearly think the FAQ's ara a steaming pile. Glad to know most Dakkaites know what they are doing

Most people will tell you that YMDC is a mere shadow of its former self. I have heard it said this is the forum where "TFG come to BS the rules". To see that so many clearly see the FAQs as official is telling.

Now, I am kind enough to provide citations when I make claims, please also be so kind.

Kilkrazy wrote:The purpose of an FAQ is to clarify, amend and fix up a piece of the official rules which was badly written enough in the first place to need fixing. As such, it must necessarily have the force of a rule. Whatever GW say, an FAQ list is nothing to do with house rules, which are local changes made for a variety of reasons, including to fix broken stuff, and are called house rules or ground rules.

GW though, do not admit that their rules are flawed in that way, nor do they recognise or admit that their FAQs are often just as flawed. That is why they bill the FAQs as vague suggestions.

It's a nonsense attitude which simply perpetuates the rotten arguments about rule interpretation.

Agreed. Frankly one can argue a default that that screams RAI from GW, and hence would be binding as well. However, I've not had anyone in the Real World (TM) make the claim to not use the GW FAQ, or even worse only a part of them. The latter positions you as potentially TFG as you're cherry picking.

Afrikan Blonde wrote: To see that so many clearly see the FAQs as official is telling.

Ignoring the inlflamatory bit, I see the numbers (including the waivering answers) as 85 - 69, against thinking they are official, as of the time you wrote that. So perhaps I am missing your point.

That said, I think the FAQ include some official rulings. They are labeled Errata.
The rest I see as officially GW written house rules, for clarification in case what is already written is contentious within your gaming group.

Less useful than tourney specific rules, but more widely available.
This makes them distinctly popular, but still moot.

I bring a list of questions and issues with me to any game that I play versus a player I do not know, or have not discussed rules with before. This list includes items covered in the FAQs, but not items covered in Errata. ymmv

shrug

Frazzled wrote:Agreed. Frankly one can argue a default that that screams RAI from GW, and hence would be binding as well. However, I've not had anyone in the Real World (TM) make the claim to not use the GW FAQ, or even worse only a part of them. The latter positions you as potentially TFG as you're cherry picking.

I only use part, and I am not cherry picking. I use the bits that actually clarify unclear rules. The parts the directly contradict clear RaW are the bits I ignore.

I think this thread has done its purpose. Enough people have pointed out that GW themselves stated that the FAQs are not official rulings in any way, simply their interpretation of how a rule should be played. If you choose to agree with every aspect of the FAQs then by all means do so, it's not like we're going to hunt you down. I would just be prepared to come across the potential opponent that disagrees with how the FAQs interpret a particular rule and know that your opponent is quite possibly 100% correct in their interpretation.

Gwar! wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Agreed. Frankly one can argue a default that that screams RAI from GW, and hence would be binding as well. However, I've not had anyone in the Real World (TM) make the claim to not use the GW FAQ, or even worse only a part of them. The latter positions you as potentially TFG as you're cherry picking.

I only use part, and I am not cherry picking. I use the bits that actually clarify unclear rules. The parts the directly contradict clear RaW are the bits I ignore.

Incorrect. You are using the parts that you believe 'actually clarify unclear rules." You are indeed cherry picking against your self defined analysis of what is RAW or not and using them only in support of that.

Thats cherry picking. Either / or is not. Anything deviating from that is, by its very nature, perceptual cherry picking.

The entire legal industry makes its bones on particular viewings of RAI/RAW. What is RAW is always in the eye of the beerholder.


"The Vorlons have a saying, 'the truth is a three edged sword. Your truth, my truth, and what lies in between.' "

Frazzled wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Agreed. Frankly one can argue a default that that screams RAI from GW, and hence would be binding as well. However, I've not had anyone in the Real World (TM) make the claim to not use the GW FAQ, or even worse only a part of them. The latter positions you as potentially TFG as you're cherry picking.

I only use part, and I am not cherry picking. I use the bits that actually clarify unclear rules. The parts the directly contradict clear RaW are the bits I ignore.

Incorrect. You are using the parts that you believe 'actually clarify unclear rules." You are indeed cherry picking against your self defined analysis of what is RAW or not and using them only in support of that.

Thats cherry picking. Either / or is not. Anything deviating from that is, by its very nature, perceptual cherry picking.

My thoughts exactly. Thanks for saving me some typing, Frazzled. The presumption by a player that they know how something works over the guys that wrote the game to the point of claiming the player is correct where the writers aren't has always been a ridiculous concept to me.

If you see the FAQ as wrong because it answers with RAI, consider that maybe the game isn't meant to function as a pure RAW exercise. That would make the FAQ answer completely correct. As I have said before, RAW purism is doing it wrong. It isn't the standard the game is created around.

What I am Talking about is, for example, Deff Dread Attacks. Using the Rules as they are Written, they get X attacks. The FAQ says they get Y attacks. No Explanation or rules change, they just ignore the RaW.

Frazzled wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Agreed. Frankly one can argue a default that that screams RAI from GW, and hence would be binding as well. However, I've not had anyone in the Real World (TM) make the claim to not use the GW FAQ, or even worse only a part of them. The latter positions you as potentially TFG as you're cherry picking.

I only use part, and I am not cherry picking. I use the bits that actually clarify unclear rules. The parts the directly contradict clear RaW are the bits I ignore.

Incorrect. You are using the parts that you believe 'actually clarify unclear rules." You are indeed cherry picking against your self defined analysis of what is RAW or not and using them only in support of that.

Thats cherry picking. Either / or is not. Anything deviating from that is, by its very nature, perceptual cherry picking.

The entire legal industry makes its bones on particular viewings of RAI/RAW. What is RAW is always in the eye of the beerholder.


"The Vorlons have a saying, 'the truth is a three edged sword. Your truth, my truth, and what lies in between.' "

QFT

At least with the GW FAQs you have an unbiased third party answering questions. If nothing else they hold value in that players of the game can read them beforehand and both know what to expect if the situation arises. That reason alone is enough to use them for tournaments.

FLGS game night, well you are free to play situations however you and your opponents choose to play them.

Gwar! wrote:What I am Talking about is, for example, Deff Dread Attacks. Using the Rules as they are Written, they get X attacks. The FAQ says they get Y attacks. No Explanation or rules change, they just ignore the RaW.

Are you saying they say something different to the RAW, or just that they're basically RAW without saying why?

Spirit of the law vs letter of the law. again...

The FAQs represent the resolution of issues that the creators of the game have decided best reflects their intention.

The FAQs are used the world over to resolve these same issues both in competitive and casual play.

The majority of the players of the world will continue to use them, irregardless of any notion that they contain a caveat dedicated to the mantra of personal choice.

I'd be more in agreement to the nonFAQ players if those not utilizing the FAQ didn't utilize any of it.

The Green Git wrote:At least with the GW FAQs you have an unbiased third party answering questions.

I am afraid that is not true. If they have to pick between:
Following the Rules as best as possible

or

Ignoring them so people buy more models


They pick the 2nd option. See the IG FAQ where they made Valks unreal and let DH/WH Armies take options they shouldn't be able to have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:I'd be more in agreement to the nonFAQ players if those not utilizing the FAQ didn't utilize any of it.

But there are issues that need clarifying, however, GW half the time don't address them, the other half address rules that are clear and the other half just outright ignore the rules.

Your defense is not supportable. If you use any of the FAQ than you are cherry picking to what supports your interpretation of RAW. Further, you're assuming RAW is the way to play.

Gwar! wrote: and let DH/WH Armies take options they shouldn't be able to have.

Letting DH/WH Armies continue to take options they already had the choice to take, despite bizarre interpretation of the written word by you.

Really mate, stop it already, I know it itches but picking at it just makes it worse. I'm sorry you were so blindly insistant but GW said otherwise in the FAQ and you've really gone into overdrive to get the FAQs ruled out ever since. The oversight on the description in the Imp G codex to squadron really was just that, an oversight and they have said it's fine to take.

0-1 Leman Russ is perfectly fine in a DH or WH army.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:0-1 Leman Russ is perfectly fine in a DH or WH army.

Only because the FAQ says so. RaW it is not.

PER YOUR INTERPRETATION.

And that, son, is cherry picking.

Frazzled wrote:PER YOUR INTERPRETATION.

And that, son, is cherry picking.

No, by what the rules actually say. I take what the rules say, apply English language rules to them, and come to a conclusion. Where rules are genuinely unclear, that is when they need FAQs to clarify things.

Nope thats your interpretation. A conclusion is by nature an intepretation. Your interpretation based on what you determine to be the rules of analysis.

The FAQ addressed it did it not? therefore your own statement lacks support "when they need FAQs to clarify things."

Again, you're cherry picking.

Frazzled wrote:Nope thats your interpretation. A conclusion is by nature an intepretation. Your interpretation based on what you determine to be the rules of analysis.

The FAQ addressed it did it not? therefore your own statement lacks support "when they need FAQs to clarify things."

Again, you're cherry picking.

IT WAS NOT UNCLEAR. It was clear from a rules standpoint, but people whined because it changed how it used to work.

13 people agreed with Gwar! on this (so far!), by votes.

That is the odd part to me.

Surely you mean 82?

82+13

82 on my "FAQ's are not official" view.
13 on "Use the FAQ when they actually Apply" view.

Seriously folks, when the guys that create the game say it works one way, and you think they are wrong, it's time to reevaluate the method you are using to obtain your answer.

Consider the fact that it is you who are wrong, not them. There are far, far, FAR fewer inconsistencies and mistakes in the game if you start from the mentality that the rules of 40K are not books of law to be taken literally. That's just a starting point to understanding the message the author is conveying.

I henceforth dub RAW purists as 40K Fundamentalists.

Kaaihn wrote:Seriously folks, when the guys that create the game say it works one way, and you think they are wrong, it's time to reevaluate the method you are using to obtain your answer.

Consider the fact that it is you who are wrong, not them. There are far, far, FAR fewer inconsistencies and mistakes in the game if you start from the mentality that the rules of 40K are not books of law to be taken literally. That's just a starting point to understanding the message the author is conveying.

Ah but you forget, the people who wrote the game did not write half the FAQs. They were too busy getting high and got Yakface to do it.

I henceforth dub RAW purists as 40K Fundamentalists.

No, we are the Scientists. Once the FAQs change to actually be useful, then we will subscribe to the new information. if we were fundamentalists we would ignore the FAQs even if they were declared Hard Errata and came sealed with Jervis' Blood (preferably a LOT of it).

Gwar! wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Nope thats your interpretation. A conclusion is by nature an intepretation. Your interpretation based on what you determine to be the rules of analysis.

The FAQ addressed it did it not? therefore your own statement lacks support "when they need FAQs to clarify things."

Again, you're cherry picking.

IT WAS NOT UNCLEAR. It was clear from a rules standpoint, but people whined because it changed how it used to work.

Again you're saying it was unclear. GW disagreed and issued an FAQ.

No, English says it was unclear. Look at the arguments we previously had. I argued the rules, MGS argued "this is how it used to work".

Only because the FAQ says so. RaW it is not.

Evidently your interpretation of RAW then, was incorrect.

Again you can't pick and choose in the FAQ between what you thinki is correct and what isn't. You have to accept the whole thing, or nothing.

this poll is flawed, it breaks one of the tenets of YMDC. It does not make a clear distinction between RAW and HYWPI.

there is no consideration here to made, the GW faq is Not Official, Gwar proved that with the link to the GW website that says the FAQ is a set of stuido house rules.

You may play all of your games using the FAQ out of simplicity, I am not saying that is wrong, and my FLGS has adopted the FAQs as their own house rules. but it is not official.

If the poll had been worded "how do you accept the FAQS"
a: As our own house rules
b: As trash
c: I dont understand your question
d: I use some of the FAQs when they clear up issues that the rulesbook/codex do not cover, but when they just change what is written arbitratily we ignore them.

Frazzled wrote:
Again you're saying it was unclear. GW disagreed and issued an FAQ.

The FAQ's change the way things work per RAW sometimes. Just because they do, doesn't mean that the way it worked before the FAQ was not RAW.

Frazzled wrote:
Again you can't pick and choose in the FAQ between what you thinki is correct and what isn't. You have to accept the whole thing, or nothing.

Actually you can. Have you read GW's position on the FAQ's?

(even though GWAR! isn't really doing that)

In the real world, utilizing some is cherry picking.

Sorry, work cut off my snarkiness.


13 said "It's unclear to me and I treat each rule on a case by case basis when a question arises".

That read to me to be on the check each ruling/answer for issues side of things.

Gwar! wrote:

I henceforth dub RAW purists as 40K Fundamentalists.

No, we are the Scientists. Once the FAQs change to actually be useful, then we will subscribe to the new information. if we were fundamentalists we would ignore the FAQs even if they were declared Hard Errata and came sealed with Jervis' Blood (preferably a LOT of it).

We are picking apart an off the cuff joke here, but it was a completely valid and relevant comparison.

The most publicly recognized of the five key tenets of Christian Fundamentalism is the usage of the Bible at its literal word, rather than the more widely accepted belief that the written words are simply a medium (a framework, if you will) to convey a concept. Sound familiar?

Ah but you see, Fundamentalism is resistant to change. If GW Changed so they state that the FAQs are Iron Clad "This is how you play it" statements, my view would change. As it is, they do not, so my view is the correct one.

The data in the poll, if it were not already sufficiently flawed by being set up a) in a rules forum, b) on a forum with free accounts, and c) set up to be voted on by self selecting individuals, is even more flawed because the poll option was set to allow multiple choices. Would anyone other than an evil sophist or rules lawyer even bother voting here?

If I were playing against a complete stranger, with no other discussion than "Do you want to play a game? How many points do you have?" then the default for me would be that the rulebook, codices, errata and FAQ's all would apply. As a Reforming Evil Sophist, I am compelled to defend this as the one true way to play, unless the other person enters into rules negotiations before playing.

solkan wrote:The data in the poll, if it were not already sufficiently flawed by being set up a) in a rules forum, b) on a forum with free accounts, and c) set up to be voted on by self selecting individuals, is even more flawed because the poll option was set to allow multiple choices. Would anyone other than an evil sophist or rules lawyer even bother voting here?

If I were playing against a complete stranger, with no other discussion than "Do you want to play a game? How many points do you have?" then the default for me would be that the rulebook, codices, errata and FAQ's all would apply. As a Reforming Evil Sophist, I am compelled to defend this as the one true way to play, unless the other person enters into rules negotiations before playing.

Well well... it looks like those who think it is official have voted. Gwar has lost lots of ground.

solkan wrote:If I were playing against a complete stranger, with no other discussion than "Do you want to play a game? How many points do you have?" then the default for me would be that the rulebook, codices, errata and FAQ's all would apply. As a Reforming Evil Sophist, I am compelled to defend this as the one true way to play, unless the other person enters into rules negotiations before playing.

That's perfectly reasonable as a standpoint. However the poll isn't asking whether the FAQs are useful in tourney play or in games vs. unknown gamers/clubs/et al.

The poll is asking whether the FAQs are 'official' (and by that I presume he means that they are official rules). To which the answer, as provided by GW, is obviously no, they are not. Then again, the poll question inculdes the subjective 'do you consider' so I suppose that's perfectly fine, if just a continuation of the flawed nature of the poll.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:Well well... it looks like those who think it is official have voted. Gwar has lost lots of ground.

You still have more people voting them unofficial than official.

Not that it matters, they ARE unofficial, no matter how much you QQ

Please stop with the leet comments Gwar.

48% official or treat as official.

46% unofficial or treat as unofficial.

We are winning now.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:We are winning now.

Now I have a better understanding of the wording.

kirsanth wrote:

Afrikan Blonde wrote:We are winning now.

Now I have a better understanding of the wording.

Yup, so do I. Glad to see this poll was about "winning" rather than finding out the views of the members eh?

War is hell.

Gwar! wrote:Yup, so do I. Glad to see this poll was about "winning" rather than finding out the views of the members eh?

It does show the views....

And the OP didnt try to "win" like you did.

So Faq's are "official" stuff here:

GW website / GW event ( league ):

§3 Gültige Spielregeln & Armeelisten

Es gelten die Regeln des Warhammer-40.000-Regelbuches der 5. Edition (2008) sofern nicht durch offizielle Errata geändert oder durch Fragen und Antworten des Schreines des Wissens berichtigt.

Still, answers, not the rules themselves. But mandatory there.

Yes, because the ENGLISH people who Wrote the rules in ENGLISH have stated on the ENGLISH website in ENGLISH that the FAQs are nothing but house rules (In ENGLISH), are obviously not as important as some translator.

Gwar! wrote:Yes, because the ENGLISH people who Wrote the rules in ENGLISH have stated on the ENGLISH website in ENGLISH that the FAQs are nothing but house rules (In ENGLISH), are obviously not as important as some translator.

Oh I am sorry mandatory publications used in "official" events are not "official" enough for those who cant accept a different POV.

Cry me ariver if you must, but that doesnt change what GW says on their own site.

Link: http://lokal.games-workshop.de/liga/info-sektion/regeln/spielregeln.shtm

Should i link to Warhammer world too? They also use GW faqs.... Could help, cause they may be english enough...

Hey now don't let it get to you. We are talking about toy soldiers after all.

Pretty sure the phrase "toy soldiers" doesn't belong in a YMDC thread

1hadhq wrote:Should i link to Warhammer world too? They also use GW faqs.... Could help, cause they may be english enough...

The Queen herself could use the FAQs for all I care. That does not change that GW, by their own admission, have stated the FAQs are house rules. House rules are not official. Otherwise, I can house rule that all your models have 1 for all their stats and no armour save, and you would have to play that way, even if I have never seen you before or ever will see you.

1hadhq wrote:Oh I am sorry mandatory publications used in "official" events are not "official" enough for those who cant accept a different POV.

I can easily accept a different point of view. However, as I originally said, it very much depends on how one defines 'official' in this particular question.

I think the FAQs officially come from GW
I think the FAQ is officially used at many tourneys.
I do not think the FAQ is officially rules - and GW says the same thing on their site.
I do think Errata are officially rules, and GW concurs.

Also, the FAQ is a mandatory publication? What do you mean by that?

Afrikan Blonde wrote:Hey now don't let it get to you. We are talking about toy soldiers after all.

I honestly am starting to think from your comments that this entire thing was just something to get at Gwar. I may be wrong, but eh. Also loltied.

Thor665 wrote:Also, the FAQ is a mandatory publication? What do you mean by that?

No idea. GW Certainly do not think they are Mandatory considering there is still no Chaos Daemons FAQ... after what, close to 2 years now?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Eternal Newb wrote:

Afrikan Blonde wrote:Hey now don't let it get to you. We are talking about toy soldiers after all.

I honestly am starting to think from your comments that this entire thing was just something to get at Gwar. I may be wrong, but eh. Also loltied.

I am sure it was, but it happens so often now I have long since stopped caring.

Gwar! wrote: GW Certainly do not think they are Mandatory considering there is still no Chaos Daemons FAQ... after what, close to 2 years now?

Dude, why would you want to fuss around with perfection?

1hadhq wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Yes, because the ENGLISH people who Wrote the rules in ENGLISH have stated on the ENGLISH website in ENGLISH that the FAQs are nothing but house rules (In ENGLISH), are obviously not as important as some translator.

Oh I am sorry mandatory publications used in "official" events are not "official" enough for those who cant accept a different POV.

Cry me ariver if you must, but that doesnt change what GW says on their own site.

Link: http://lokal.games-workshop.de/liga/info-sektion/regeln/spielregeln.shtm

Should i link to Warhammer world too? They also use GW faqs.... Could help, cause they may be english enough...

Actually the man from the land of fine ubercars and hot blonds is correct. Its official in German, then its official for players using the German version. The FAQs are official.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

1hadhq wrote:Should i link to Warhammer world too? They also use GW faqs.... Could help, cause they may be english enough...

The Queen herself could use the FAQs for all I care. That does not change that GW, by their own admission, have stated the FAQs are house rules. House rules are not official. Otherwise, I can house rule that all your models have 1 for all their stats and no armour save, and you would have to play that way, even if I have never seen you before or ever will see you.

And you're one vote Gwar. I cancel you out. Neither of us exist! (do we still have to pay taxes and obey traffic laws?)

Frazzled wrote:Actually the man from the land of fine ubercars and hot blonds is correct. Its official in German, then its official for players using the German version. The FAQs are official.

What the hell! Now I have to move to Germany in order to get a company that will stand behind their FAQs. I can only dream that they'd start doing that here too.

Ummm...I think you're all missing the point that FAQs are Official at ALL OFFICIAL GW EVENTS.

Even in the UK, and US, not just Deutschland.

Since that isn't news, we're back to the whole "Are they House Rules" flow chart.

Frazzled wrote:Neither of us exist! (do we still have to pay taxes and obey traffic laws?)

Roll a d6 for it. If the the government rolls higher, lower, or equal to you - yes, you do.

Ah, but some forget the first rule that appears in the book.

The most important rule then is that the rules aren’t all that important! So long as both players agree, you can treat them as sacrosanct or mere guidelines – the choice is entirely yours.

So, you see by RAW, all of the rules are house rules.

Elessar wrote:Ummm...I think you're all missing the point that FAQs are Official at ALL OFFICIAL GW EVENTS.

Even in the UK, and US, not just Deutschland.

Since that isn't news, we're back to the whole "Are they House Rules" flow chart.

No we are not. Why can't you just accept that you are wrong for once?

Elessar wrote:Ummm...I think you're all missing the point that FAQs are Official at ALL OFFICIAL GW EVENTS.

Even in the UK, and US, not just Deutschland.

Since that isn't news, we're back to the whole "Are they House Rules" flow chart.

I thought what Frazzled was saying was that on the German GW page they don't claim the FAQ as house rules. If they don't I wish they would do so everywhere. If they do then you're correct, it becomes a question of how official someone belives 'studio house rules' are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Afrikan Blonde wrote:No we are not. Why can't you just accept that you are wrong for once?

Ouch!

How is he wrong exactly? I take it you consider 'studio house rules' to be official. That's fine. But how is it wrong to not consider house rules official?

Thor665 wrote:
I can easily accept a different point of view. However, as I originally said, it very much depends on how one defines 'official' in this particular question.

I think the FAQs officially come from GW
I think the FAQ is officially used at many tourneys.
I do not think the FAQ is officially rules - and GW says the same thing on their site.
I do think Errata are officially rules, and GW concurs.

This.

Demojerk wrote:

Thor665 wrote:
I can easily accept a different point of view. However, as I originally said, it very much depends on how one defines 'official' in this particular question.

I think the FAQs officially come from GW
I think the FAQ is officially used at many tourneys.
I do not think the FAQ is officially rules - and GW says the same thing on their site.
I do think Errata are officially rules, and GW concurs.

This.

Or not.

Would you care to point out the error in my points? I fail to see it.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:

Demojerk wrote:

Or not.

there is no reason to directly insult me.

Lol Demojerk. Quick, to the Drop Pods old Friend, the Wolves are hungry!

Afrikan Blonde wrote:Or not.

I disagree with your opinion, well that is if it consisted of more then "Nuh uh!".

Thor665 wrote:

Elessar wrote:Ummm...I think you're all missing the point that FAQs are Official at ALL OFFICIAL GW EVENTS.

Even in the UK, and US, not just Deutschland.

Since that isn't news, we're back to the whole "Are they House Rules" flow chart.

I thought what Frazzled was saying was that on the German GW page they don't claim the FAQ as house rules. If they don't I wish they would do so everywhere. If they do then you're correct, it becomes a question of how official someone belives 'studio house rules' are.

Correct. Germen language codexes/rules/FAQs take precedence in German town. If they say the FAQ is official then it is for those using the German version.
But yes GW using its own FAQs for tournaments, in addition to being common sense, lend credence to the view that they should be used as such in normal gaming.

utan wrote:Ah, but some forget the first rule that appears in the book.

The most important rule then is that the rules aren’t all that important! So long as both players agree, you can treat them as sacrosanct or mere guidelines – the choice is entirely yours.

So, you see by RAW, all of the rules are house rules.

But what happens when the player's don't agree whether or not the rules are important? Quick, we need a GW FAQ...errr I mean errata !

Vermillion wrote:They are yes, as they are rules clarifications etc, its annoying as they usually get printed in a white dwarf and count as official even though anyone with any sense wouldn't buy it even for novelty toilet paper

When was the last time GW printed an FAQ in White Dwarf? I thought they stopped that years ago, but I also stopped buying WD a few years back, so wouldn't know if they started again.

This was backed up years ago by a staff member in a GW who informed people that yes they were.

For what it's worth, 'years ago' the FAQ's were official rulings. The current edition has seen GW change their stance, with the 'studio house rules' label that people have been mentioning all over this thread being applied to them on the GW website.

Kaaihn wrote:Seriously folks, when the guys that create the game say it works one way, and you think they are wrong, it's time to reevaluate the method you are using to obtain your answer.

To return to my previous example: When the guys who create the game say that an attack squig should be a separate model, but the only model that they make of an attack squig is sculpted onto the Ork who owns it, what conclusion can you really draw other than that they are wrong?

Besides, not wanting to use a given FAQ answer doesn't necessarily mean that you think they're wrong. We change rules sometimes just because we think it would be more fun to play something slightly differently. For example, despite GW's current stance that codexes are self-contained and should use their own rules, I'll continue to treat all Land Raiders as having Assault Ramps and the Machine Spirit... because that makes far more sense to me than different LR's having different rules. Particularly when one case of those LR's having different rules occurs in a single codex, thanks to an FAQ updating GK LR's but ignoring Inquisitors' transports...

There are far, far, FAR fewer inconsistencies and mistakes in the game if you start from the mentality that the rules of 40K are not books of law to be taken literally.

So why then is it wrong to play the rules as you like, rather than blindly follow FAQ's that don't always seem to be the best way to play?

Frazzled wrote:In the real world, utilizing some is cherry picking.

I think you'll get arguments there simply because 'cherry picking' has negative connotations. If someone's ignoring FAQ answers that disadvantage themselves but happily using the rest, then sure, I'd call that cherry picking. But using that tag on people using the FAQs for the purpose stated by GW (ie: as an aid, and no more set in stone than any of the other rules of the game) seems a little harsh.

house rule 
–noun : a rule that is used in a game only in a specific place, as a particular casino, or only among a certain group of players.


shrug

I don't collect, assemble and paint armies, build terrain, compose rosters and such to come to a table to debate the finer details of RAW.

The FAQs are "official" GW products, all GW 40K rules bear qualifying statements that they are "house rules" or "mere guidelines" at the outset. The FAQs are just as official as the 40K rulebook and codices.

utan wrote:The FAQs are just as official as the 40K rulebook and codices.

Except that they are not, by order of GW?

I think you'll get arguments there simply because 'cherry picking' has negative connotations. If someone's ignoring FAQ answers that disadvantage themselves but happily using the rest, then sure, I'd call that cherry picking. But using that tag on people using the FAQs for the purpose stated by GW (ie: as an aid, and no more set in stone than any of the other rules of the game) seems a little harsh.

Agreed there. Selective use of the FAQ is probably what I'm going for. I'm not intending negative intent on the part of those doing so, just effective impact on preception.

Frazzled, even when I don't agree with what you say, I almost always agree with how you say it. Thanks for your participation in this thread. Though for the record, I certainly agree with everything that you've said here.

Gwar! wrote:

utan wrote:

The FAQs are just as official as the 40K rulebook and codices.

Except that they are not, by order of GW?

Still preaching that line, huh?

Afrikan Blonde wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

utan wrote:The FAQs are just as official as the 40K rulebook and codices.

Except that they are not, by order of GW?

Still preaching that line, huh?

If by preaching you mean "Telling people what GW say", then yes.

Neconilis wrote:Frazzled, even when I don't agree with what you say, I almost always agree with how you say it. Thanks for your participation in this thread. Though for the record, I certainly agree with everything that you've said here.

Now there's someone who knows what they're talking about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

If by preaching you mean "Telling people what GW say", then yes.

Doesn't GW also say change rules as you see fit (real question)? If so then all their rules are house rules.

As stated, I'm agreed with the poster that I'm not going to argue the points of an issue if there is an FAQ on it. I'm just not going to waste my time doing that. People who want to do that, more power to them. But they are not going to get a game with me. I literally don't have the time to play now, much less argue rules that have been determined previously.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:Still preaching that line, huh?

Gwar! has provided the exact quote and location of where he's getting his "line" from, and even most of the people participating in this discussion who disagree with him on the 'offcial' aspect of the FAQ do not disagree that this "line" exists. Please debunk his "line" with a quote from the FAQs or rulebook or offer up something a bit more then just a seemingly meaningless assault on his position with no support for your position.

By the by, I'd still like to see why you disagreed with my position last page, if you have some time to expand on your dismissal of it as well.

Regards,
Thor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Doesn't GW also say change rules as you see fit (real question)? If so then all their rules are house rules.

An interesting point and one I've struggled with myself (my vague conclusion is that GW is staffed by lack wits) here's how I see the breakdown.

GW publishes rules in a rulebook - they include a caveat that you may feel free to change what you wish - these are the "rules" of the game (which do include TMIR).

The then also have Errata - errata, it is said to us by GW, should be treated exactly like the rules of the game, so reference above.

Finally they have their FAQs - and to these they say are not rules or rules clarifications, instead they are "studio house rules".

So as I understand it I have rules, errata (which is to be treated like rules) and the FAQs (which are not rules, nor errata but are studio house rules) So clearly GW doesn't intend for "the rules" to be treated like the FAQs even though they have TMIR printed in the rulebooks. I do not know why they do this and honestly find it aggravating and puzzling, but clearly GW feels that studio house rules do not equate to actual rules nor errata. That is why I do not consider them to be official rules.

insaniak wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:Seriously folks, when the guys that create the game say it works one way, and you think they are wrong, it's time to reevaluate the method you are using to obtain your answer.

Besides, not wanting to use a given FAQ answer doesn't necessarily mean that you think they're wrong. We change rules sometimes just because we think it would be more fun to play something slightly differently. For example, despite GW's current stance that codexes are self-contained and should use their own rules, I'll continue to treat all Land Raiders as having Assault Ramps and the Machine Spirit... because that makes far more sense to me than different LR's having different rules. Particularly when one case of those LR's having different rules occurs in a single codex, thanks to an FAQ updating GK LR's but ignoring Inquisitors' transports...

There are far, far, FAR fewer inconsistencies and mistakes in the game if you start from the mentality that the rules of 40K are not books of law to be taken literally.

So why then is it wrong to play the rules as you like, rather than blindly follow FAQ's that don't always seem to be the best way to play?

Your confusing the issue here. Choosing to use your own house rule for your own reasons is completely different than saying you are ignoring the FAQ answers because you believe your interpretation is right, and theirs is wrong.

There is nothing wrong with looking at a rule, acknowledging how GW says it works, and then agreeing with your opponent to play it completely differently as a house rule. Its ignoring how GW says it works because you think you know better that is wrong.

Afraid I couldn't be bothered to read the four pages posted this afternoon.

Anyway, errata aren't rules, they are corrections of typos.

If someone printed a book of the rules of chess that said blue always moves first, would that change the rules of chess?

If a club made a house rule for chess that when playing with a player 10 years younger than you, you give them back their first pawn lost, would that be an official rule in chess, or a house rule?

If the international federation of chess made a new rule, that the board will be widened by one square, and a new piece called the crown prince will be introduced, would that be a house rule?

If the new piece's rules said he could ascend if he reaches the end of the board, and no-one understood what this meant, would it call for an FAQ?

If the FAQ said the crown prince ascending means he is promoted to a king, would that be a suggestion or a clarification of a rule? If it's a clarification of a rule is it a rule or just a suggestion?

As far as 40K goes, GW are the international chess federation. Just, they don't take proper responsibility for writing clear rules.

Kaaihn wrote:Your confusing the issue here. Choosing to use your own house rule for your own reasons is completely different than saying you are ignoring the FAQ answers because you believe your interpretation is right, and theirs is wrong.

If I ignore the FAQ answer because I think it's wrong, or ignore the FAQ answe because I would prefer to play a different way... what is the practical difference?


And how much difference does it make when the FAQ answer is wrong...?

Kaaihn wrote:Choosing to use your own house rule for your own reasons is completely different than saying you are ignoring the FAQ answers because you believe your interpretation is right, and theirs is wrong.

Why is that improper though? If they don't claim the FAQs as rules and instead as their own chosen house rules to explain a gray area - why is it unreasonable for me to say "well, I think they are wrong in how they interpret the gray area" and use my own house rule in that situation. They have openly stated the FAQ covers areas with questionable interpretation and refuse to call their 'interpretations' anything more strongly then just that. Unless they're willing to put on their hat as game designer and call the interpretation a ruling I see no reason to accredit said interpretation any more or less worth then that of any other player of the game.

I guess one could argue "since they publish the game it counts more" which is a reasonable standpoint. But the FAQ is a self admitted set of opinions and not rules, and I don't like claiming anyone's opinion somehow counts more then anyone else because it offends my sensibilities on human self worth and democracy.

Gwar! wrote:House rules are not official. Otherwise, I can house rule that all your models have 1 for all their stats and no armour save, and you would have to play that way, even if I have never seen you before or ever will see you.

Except this is insanely idiotic and completely untrue, and you know it. We've been over this before, you cannot force rules on people. If you suggest using something that is different than the rule GW provides, your opponent must agree to it for it to be used. You cannot house rule anything just on your say so.

It's actually RAW that you need opponents consent to use a house rule. While they are official because GW published them, the FAQ's are labeled as house rules. As such your opponent does not have to allow their use in a game if he doesn't want to agree to them. It is also completely within anyone's right to decline a friendly game against someone that refuses to use FAQ's.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:Your confusing the issue here. Choosing to use your own house rule for your own reasons is completely different than saying you are ignoring the FAQ answers because you believe your interpretation is right, and theirs is wrong.

If I ignore the FAQ answer because I think it's wrong, or ignore the FAQ answe because I would prefer to play a different way... what is the practical difference?


And how much difference does it make when the FAQ answer is wrong...?

Ignoring the FAQ because you think it is wrong means you are telling me you know the game better than the writers, which I doubt. I tend to avoid playing people with that attitude.

If you ask me if we can change a rule because you like it better another way, I may or may not agree based on whether I think the change will be fun, but your asking would not in any way turn me off from having a game with you. That's the difference.

One is the road to TFG-land, one isn't.

Kaaihn wrote:It's actually RAW that you need opponents consent to use a house rule. While they are official because GW published them, the FAQ's are labeled as house rules. As such your opponent does not have to allow their use in a game if he doesn't want to agree to them. It is also completely within anyone's right to decline a friendly game against someone that refuses to use FAQ's.

I don't think I've ever "quoted for truth" before. But that was very well said and succinct. I shall offer this repetition of it to somehow add veracity to the statement.

Thor665 wrote:I guess one could argue "since they publish the game it counts more" which is a reasonable standpoint. But the FAQ is a self admitted set of opinions and not rules, and I don't like claiming anyone's opinion somehow counts more then anyone else because it offends my sensibilities on human self worth and democracy.

This is the real heart of the issue that people have with the FAQ's I think. I have no problem with the concept of "since they publish the game it counts more", but some people do. Just because someone says they are speaking off the record doesn't mean their answer suddenly becomes less relevant or correct. They are still the authority on that subject giving the answer, whether it's on the record or not.

I guess one could argue "since they publish the game it counts more" which is a reasonable standpoint. But the FAQ is a self admitted set of opinions and not rules, and I don't like claiming anyone's opinion somehow counts more then anyone else because it offends my sensibilities on human self worth and democracy.

yes but those are the opinions of the company itself. By its nature it holds more weight, just as the argument of the intent of a law can hinge on the intent of the legislature that passed the law. This is further bolstered by GW using its FAQs for tournaments. Tournaments aren't the law either, but they do set a standard.

Again, we're primarily talking portability of gaming here. the FAQs facilitate that.

So people agree the question is loaded and they are official house rules?

Kaaihn wrote:Ignoring the FAQ because you think it is wrong means you are telling me you know the game better than the writers, which I doubt.

Surely that would have to be on a case basis, though? Unless you're going to claim that GW never make mistakes, there's always the chance that the FAQ answer is wrong... so if someone's pointing that out, surely common courtesy says that you should at least hear them out and decide for yourself, rather than just dismissing them as TFG?

insaniak wrote:To return to my previous example: When the guys who create the game say that an attack squig should be a separate model, but the only model that they make of an attack squig is sculpted onto the Ork who owns it, what conclusion can you really draw other than that they are wrong?

Just use a squig from Warhammer Fantasy and put it on a round base.

Reply by: Afrikan Blonde - click to view full reply 

17364

Do you consider the GW FAQs to be official or not? @ 2009/09/22 22:35:36

Post by: Afrikan Blonde

KK I just sigged you mate!

: )

insaniak some of the stuff you say is really way out there.

Reply by: Sazzlefrats - click to view full reply 

786

Do you consider the GW FAQs to be official or not? @ 2009/09/22 22:40:37

Post by: Sazzlefrats

Although I voted they are official (because in reality they are used in all the major tournaments that I have ever been too from southern california to northern california .. and thats a pretty wide range, and that pretty much makes them official) i recognize that GW isn't being a prick by stating they are not official, and its just an attempt to clear up any issues that they bothered to deal with, and calling them unofficial. They pretty much are offical. Though I don't any problem with two people agreeing not to use them, but I would probably object to personal interpretations used in major tournaments, where a body of people haven't already spent time on and come up with a consistent answer for most situations.

With that stated, despite all the "Must play RAW, RAW, RAW and only RAW" single vision that I see on Dakka all the time, I haven't really seen any problems in game play in over a year now.

Reply by: Demogerg - click to view full reply 

12030

Do you consider the GW FAQs to be official or not? @ 2009/09/22 22:48:39

Post by: Demogerg

insaniak wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:Ignoring the FAQ because you think it is wrong means you are telling me you know the game better than the writers, which I doubt.

Surely that would have to be on a case basis, though? Unless you're going to claim that GW never make mistakes, there's always the chance that the FAQ answer is wrong... so if someone's pointing that out, surely common courtesy says that you should at least hear them out and decide for yourself, rather than just dismissing them as TFG?

I can point out one very straightforward example of the FAQ being wrong.

Vampire counts, in relation to the Tomb Blade and Blooddrinker.

It is written in the FAQ that the Tomb Blade cannot be used to expand the size of a unit of skeletons beyond their starting size, however in the army book it says "...for each model he slays in close combat an extra model is added to the unit ... Newly created models are equiped the same as the rest of the unit."

The rules for the item would not have a provision for how to deal with new models unless they were beyond the original capacity of the unit.

The Blood Drinker on the other hand does not new models to be created, because it specifically mentions "...regains a single Wound suffered earlier in the battle..." In this case there has to be a wound suffered before the weapon can have any effect.

If we were in person and playing a game a of fantasy, and my tomb blade creates a handful of skeletons, after which someone pulls out the GW FAQ in relation to this, and tries to complain about me creating new models, I would just pull out my army book and point to page 84. If anyone should be labeled TFG for a situation like this it should be the one pulling out the FAQ, not the person playing by the "official" rules.

Reply by: Gwar! - click to view full reply 

12265

Do you consider the GW FAQs to be official or not? @ 2009/09/22 22:51:24

Post by: Gwar!

Demogerg wrote:

insaniak wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:Ignoring the FAQ because you think it is wrong means you are telling me you know the game better than the writers, which I doubt.

Surely that would have to be on a case basis, though? Unless you're going to claim that GW never make mistakes, there's always the chance that the FAQ answer is wrong... so if someone's pointing that out, surely common courtesy says that you should at least hear them out and decide for yourself, rather than just dismissing them as TFG?

I can point out one very straightforward example of the FAQ being wrong.

Vampire counts, in relation to the Tomb Blade and Blooddrinker.

It is written in the FAQ that the Tomb Blade cannot be used to expand the size of a unit of skeletons beyond their starting size, however in the army book it says "...for each model he slays in close combat an extra model is added to the unit ... Newly created models are equiped the same as the rest of the unit."

The rules for the item would not have a provision for how to deal with new models unless they were beyond the original capacity of the unit.

The Blood Drinker on the other hand does not new models to be created, because it specifically mentions "...regains a single Wound suffered earlier in the battle..." In this case there has to be a wound suffered before the weapon can have any effect.

If we were in person and playing a game a of fantasy, and my tomb blade creates a handful of skeletons, after which someone pulls out the GW FAQ in relation to this, and tries to complain about me creating new models, I would just pull out my army book and point to page 84. If anyone should be labeled TFG for a situation like this it should be the one pulling out the FAQ, not the person playing by the "official" rules.

Demogerg is 100% right here.

Reply by: insaniak - click to view full reply 

99

Do you consider the GW FAQs to be official or not? @ 2009/09/22 22:52:50

Post by: insaniak

olympia wrote:

insaniak wrote:To return to my previous example: When the guys who create the game say that an attack squig should be a separate model, but the only model that they make of an attack squig is sculpted onto the Ork who owns it, what conclusion can you really draw other than that they are wrong?

Just use a squig from Warhammer Fantasy and put it on a round base.

Or, you know, use the model that GW actually produce for the job?

Yes, I'm well aware that it's not that hard to use a separate model. The point was that at the time that GW published that FAQ they had a single model in their range with the squig, which had the squig attached. As a result, I had a model on my army with a squig attached, and didn't feel any need to change it just because GW issued an FAQ answer without bothering to consider their current model range first.

For what it's worth, on the off-chance that someone objected to me doing this I was quite prepared to simply ditch the squig at the start of the game if necessary. It never was. The pick-up games I had with my Orks around that time, I explained my point of view to my opponent at the start of the game and they invariably said 'No problem'...

Afrikan Blonde wrote:insaniak some of the stuff you say is really way out there.

Huh? Like what?

Reply by: jeffersonian000 - click to view full reply 

11373

Do you consider the GW FAQs to be official or not? @ 2009/09/22 23:17:27

Post by: jeffersonian000

I use to treat FAQ's as precedents, as a way to figure out what's going on and as a mechanic for figuring one problems that pop up. As far I was concerned at the time, a ruling in one army's FAQ was a pretty good indicator as to how another army with a similar issue should be ruled.

However, there are enough people in our world community that treat FAQ's as either house rules and as law that FAQ's (as poorly written as they tend to be) seem to add more problems than they resolve.

These days, I simply take each rule conflict on a case by case basis, apply each side equally, and work with the result if possible. If not, than I either look for consensus on the net (like here, or in other forums), or we decide how we want to treat the issue for that game. And that's it.

In a tournament, I find out which FAQ's are being use as rules for that tournament, and treat them as rules for that tournament. Pretty simple.

SJ

Reply by: Kaaihn - click to view full reply 

12254

Do you consider the GW FAQs to be official or not? @ 2009/09/22 23:48:20

Post by: Kaaihn

insaniak wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:Ignoring the FAQ because you think it is wrong means you are telling me you know the game better than the writers, which I doubt.

Surely that would have to be on a case basis, though? Unless you're going to claim that GW never make mistakes, there's always the chance that the FAQ answer is wrong... so if someone's pointing that out, surely common courtesy says that you should at least hear them out and decide for yourself, rather than just dismissing them as TFG?

"I don't use FAQ's because they are not mandatory, and I know the answers better than those guys" is a completely different attitude than someone saying over a specific rule "Hey, I really think this works differently than how they FAQ'ed it, mind if we play it my way this game"?

Again, the former is not an attitude I want to game with, the latter is completely fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:So people agree the question is loaded and they are official house rules?

Yep!

Reply by: Thor665 - click to view full reply 

11693

Do you consider the GW FAQs to be official or not? @ 2009/09/23 00:03:25

Post by: Thor665

Frazzled wrote:

I guess one could argue "since they publish the game it counts more" which is a reasonable standpoint. But the FAQ is a self admitted set of opinions and not rules, and I don't like claiming anyone's opinion somehow counts more then anyone else because it offends my sensibilities on human self worth and democracy.

yes but those are the opinions of the company itself. By its nature it holds more weight, just as the argument of the intent of a law can hinge on the intent of the legislature that passed the law. This is further bolstered by GW using its FAQs for tournaments. Tournaments aren't the law either, but they do set a standard.

Again, we're primarily talking portability of gaming here. the FAQs facilitate that.

I will agree FAQs facilitate portability of gaming, and have never challenged as such. I support their existence for that purpose (though I wish they counted as rules).

I disagree with you that somehow because they write the rules that if they come up with house rules that somehow their house rules have more weight to the game then house rules developed by any other gamer. If they turned it into a "law" (or as I read it rule) I would agree they would have more say because then they are the game makers and are making a rule. But they, for some reason, refuse to do that. Thus it's a house rule and for my money a house rule is a house rule is a house rule. I'll certainly give them credence at tourneys where they are implemented as part of the tourney rules - but I wouldn't use them when discussing the rules without adding a line specifically clarifying that what I am quoting are the FAQs.

For instance, the National Hot Dog Council has officially come out with their opinion of what condiments you should serve on a hot dog. Does their opinion count for more because they are a group dedicated to making decisions about hot dogs and thus other opinions are lesser, or does everyone who eats a hot dog have an equally valid opinion about how a hot dog should be eaten?

If it's not a rule or a law then it's probably just an opinion, and while I certainly respect their opinion and will support their right to speak of their opinion, I still fail to see why their opinion should count more then mine or yours (though neither should it count for less).

Reply by: Steelmage99 - click to view full reply 

2304

Do you consider the GW FAQs to be official or not? @ 2009/09/23 00:08:30

Post by: Steelmage99

Can't we just all agree that Afrikan Blonde is obviously trolling?

Reply by: Gwar! - click to view full reply 

12265

Do you consider the GW FAQs to be official or not? @ 2009/09/23 00:14:32

Post by: Gwar!

Steelmage99 wrote:Can't we just all agree that Afrikan Blonde is obviously trolling?

No Comment.

Reply by: tblock1984 - click to view full reply 

19986

Do you consider the GW FAQs to be official or not? @ 2009/09/23 02:08:49

Post by: tblock1984

... No comment

Reply by: insaniak - click to view full reply 

99

Do you consider the GW FAQs to be official or not? @ 2009/09/23 02:17:53

Post by: insaniak

tblock1984 wrote:c) The reason the document in question exists in the first place was to prevent arguments like the one contained in the previous 6 pages.

It's really not.

The FAQs in their current form exist for the same reason GW US has a guy answering rules questions by email: Some people prefer to have the 'voice of authority' resolve their rules disputes, rather than just dicing for it. That authority doesn't have to be particularly authoritative... it just needs to appear to be endorsed by GW to make it more authoritative than the guy on the other side of the table.

They're (the FAQ's) not intended to stop us from discussing the rules. Nor are they intended to force us to play the game a given way. They're simply a potential source of clarification for those who choose to use them.

Reply by: Thor665 - click to view full reply 

11693

Do you consider the GW FAQs to be official or not? @ 2009/09/23 02:30:06

Post by: Thor665

tblock1984 wrote:a) I am a noob and just got my rulebook today. AOBR rulebook, page 2, states the first rule is is that the rules don't matter. Therefore, your argument is invalid!

Actually that's not what the rule states - though even if it did it would still fail to make the current debate invalid as it would remove itself from consideration and cause us all to divide by zero. TMIR is about making sure you have fun while you play the game.

As long as you have that sorted out it's quite reasonable to discuss whether or not you believe the FAQs qualify as rules or not.

Reply by: Iron_Chaos_Brute - click to view full reply 

11422

Do you consider the GW FAQs to be official or not? @ 2009/09/23 02:41:02

Post by: Iron_Chaos_Brute

Steelmage99 wrote:Can't we just all agree that Afrikan Blonde is obviously trolling?

I agree.

tblock1984a wrote: I am a noob and just got my rulebook today. AOBR rulebook, page 2, states the first rule is is that the rules don't matter. Therefore, your argument is invalid!
Unless you are going to argue that it isn't the BGB, so it is unofficial. Therefore, my argument is invalid! (Hurm, sarcasm value seems to be set to high...)

Please read Tenets of You Make da Call with particular attention to #7. Even with sarcasm, these often still apply.

EDIT: code fix

Reply by: tblock1984 - click to view full reply 

19986

Do you consider the GW FAQs to be official or not? @ 2009/09/23 02:50:39

Post by: tblock1984

Never mind. BTW, I am not the only one to mention TMIR...
I am going back to the modelling forum now...

Reply by: Ripister - click to view full reply 

18351

Do you consider the GW FAQs to be official or not? @ 2009/09/23 03:04:48

Post by: Ripister

I treat them official. But if you don't have a copy of the FAQ when your in battle with me. Then it doesn't apply

Reply by: Madgod - click to view full reply 

15773

Do you consider the GW FAQs to be official or not? @ 2009/09/23 07:54:32

Post by: Madgod

Hoorah! Glad to see cooler heads have prevailed in the poll. Official all the way!

Reply by: Eternal Newb - click to view full reply 

12520

Do you consider the GW FAQs to be official or not? @ 2009/09/23 08:11:59

Post by: Eternal Newb

Madgod wrote:Hoorah! Glad to see cooler heads have prevailed in the poll. Official all the way!

Yay? Your side is leading in a poll that will most likely not have any influence against those who voted opposite and not change a single thing? And no, they are still not official.

Reply by: MeanGreenStompa - click to view full reply 

8742

Do you consider the GW FAQs to be official or not? @ 2009/09/23 09:04:07

Post by: MeanGreenStompa

Eternal Newb wrote:And no, they are still not official.

Except at tournaments and in the homes and clubs across the world, where they will be taken as official adjudication on issues by, or endorsed by, the creators of the game...

Only the strangeness of the RAW fundamentalists on this site are sticking vehemently to the notion they aren't 'proper' and several of them have gone on to say that they use them, or just choose to use part of them that they consider suits them best.

You can shout into the storm all you like that they aren't official and the world will continue to use them as official.

To treat the disclaimer as an indication that they are not official would require you also adhere to the disclaimer GW place on page 2 of the rulebook, the great and powerful 'most important rule' that states all rules are mutable according to mutual accord at the table, the 'most important rule' says if you can't immediately find a rule in the books, just roll for it...

We smile at this and still say we are going to use the rules in the book, understanding the point JJ and co are trying to make with the 'most important rule' and the exact same treatment should be applied to the 'disclaimer' for FAQs, they hold equal measure and we understand they are both written to encourage casual play and relaxed atmosphere. If you chose to ignore one of those caveats, as those who adhere strictly to RAW are doing, then you must show equal treatment to the other. Either the FAQs hold water, all of them, or the disclaimer is in effect and if so, the 'most important rule' also holds sway and it's open season on what you do during a game and how.

To do anything else is cherry picking as Frazzled so rightly stated. If your going to make a ruling for your gameplay, stick to it. Either accept the FAQs along with the rules and play according to the ruleset, or accept the disclaimer and the most important rule and play ultra-casual. You really cannot sit on the fence, taking bits of something and bits of the other and then claim it's an absolute, it holds no water.

Reply by: Madgod - click to view full reply 

15773

Do you consider the GW FAQs to be official or not? @ 2009/09/23 09:54:40

Post by: Madgod

Eternal Newb wrote:

Madgod wrote:Hoorah! Glad to see cooler heads have prevailed in the poll. Official all the way!

Yay? Your side is leading in a poll that will most likely not have any influence against those who voted opposite and not change a single thing? And no, they are still not official.

At least it's nice to know that most people support me. You don't need to get all defensive.

And MeanGreenStompa is right too.

Reply by: PhantomViper - click to view full reply 

15818

Do you consider the GW FAQs to be official or not? @ 2009/09/23 10:18:05

Post by: PhantomViper

This is strange, but I agree with MeanGreenStompa...

If the "FAQs are just house rules" disclaimer is given any credit, then TMIR also has to be taken into consideration, wich causes all rules to be optional and will cause the world to come to an end in fire and brimstone...

Therefore, if we ignore TMIR we also have to ignore the FAQ Disclaimer and using that in conjuction with the fact that FAQs are used in practically every single tournament world wide, makes FAQs official rulings with as much weight as the BRB!

Reply by: Kilkrazy - click to view full reply 

299

Do you consider the GW FAQs to be official or not? @ 2009/09/23 10:30:30

Post by: Kilkrazy

The GS Studio attitude is that the core 40K rules are merely some fun house rules they got up while messing around in the studio, which you are welcome to use or adapt as you see fit.

However the management attitude is that GW is purveying a multi-million dollar, well-organised hobby, and that's why the core rules cost £30.


Automatically Appended Next Post:


Mod:

There are two alerts open for posts in this thread, so I will remind people not to

(A) Spam the forum with useless comments.
(B) Put insults at other users. Address the argument not the person.

Most thread which go over 4 pages spiral into a flame fest. Don't let it happen to this one.

Thank you.

Reply by: padixon - click to view full reply 

8489

Do you consider the GW FAQs to be official or not? @ 2009/09/23 11:14:23

Post by: padixon

PhantomViper wrote:This is strange, but I agree with MeanGreenStompa...

If the "FAQs are just house rules" disclaimer is given any credit, then TMIR also has to be taken into consideration, wich causes all rules to be optional and will cause the world to come to an end in fire and brimstone...

Therefore, if we ignore TMIR we also have to ignore the FAQ Disclaimer and using that in conjuction with the fact that FAQs are used in practically every single tournament world wide, makes FAQs official rulings with as much weight as the BRB!

This is *exactly* as I see it as well. If someone argues that the TMIR is nonsense, then how do they have a leg to stand on anymore when they use the disclaimer for the FAQs which say exactly the same thing. It's basically a case of reading and believing only the parts you would like too.

Basically, nothing in GW rules are 'official' they are all mere guidelines so everyone can have fun.

Reply by: Frazzled - click to view full reply 

221

Do you consider the GW FAQs to be official or not? @ 2009/09/23 12:26:46

Post by: Frazzled

Steelmage99 wrote:Can't we just all agree that Afrikan Blonde is obviously trolling?

No, we can't. you mayhaps.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Eternal Newb wrote:And no, they are still not official.

Except at tournaments and in the homes and clubs across the world, where they will be taken as official adjudication on issues by, or endorsed by, the creators of the game...

Only the strangeness of the RAW fundamentalists on this site are sticking vehemently to the notion they aren't 'proper' and several of them have gone on to say that they use them, or just choose to use part of them that they consider suits them best.

You can shout into the storm all you like that they aren't official and the world will continue to use them as official.

To treat the disclaimer as an indication that they are not official would require you also adhere to the disclaimer GW place on page 2 of the rulebook, the great and powerful 'most important rule' that states all rules are mutable according to mutual accord at the table, the 'most important rule' says if you can't immediately find a rule in the books, just roll for it...

We smile at this and still say we are going to use the rules in the book, understanding the point JJ and co are trying to make with the 'most important rule' and the exact same treatment should be applied to the 'disclaimer' for FAQs, they hold equal measure and we understand they are both written to encourage casual play and relaxed atmosphere. If you chose to ignore one of those caveats, as those who adhere strictly to RAW are doing, then you must show equal treatment to the other. Either the FAQs hold water, all of them, or the disclaimer is in effect and if so, the 'most important rule' also holds sway and it's open season on what you do during a game and how.

To do anything else is cherry picking as Frazzled so rightly stated. If your going to make a ruling for your gameplay, stick to it. Either accept the FAQs along with the rules and play according to the ruleset, or accept the disclaimer and the most important rule and play ultra-casual. You really cannot sit on the fence, taking bits of something and bits of the other and then claim it's an absolute, it holds no water.

Word to the furry faced guy.

Reply by: utan - click to view full reply 

7690

Do you consider the GW FAQs to be official or not? @ 2009/09/23 13:33:12

Post by: utan

I'm yet another voice in the choir singing TMIR and the FAQ disclaimer are in the same league. If you can't argue TMIR in YMDC threads, then you shouldn't be able to use the FAQ disclaimer either. After all, in the Tenets of YMDC, rule #2 states:

2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs.

There's your answer. When someone in a YMDC thread posts discounting the officially sanctioned FAQ, they should be reported to the MODs for breaking the forum rules.

Reply by: Demogerg - click to view full reply 

12030

Do you consider the GW FAQs to be official or not? @ 2009/09/23 14:22:03

Post by: Demogerg

utan wrote:I'm yet another voice in the choir singing TMIR and the FAQ disclaimer are in the same league. If you can't argue TMIR in YMDC threads, then you shouldn't be able to use the FAQ disclaimer either. After all, in the Tenets of YMDC, rule #2 states:

2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs.

There's your answer. When someone in a YMDC thread posts discounting the officially sanctioned FAQ, they should be reported to the MODs for breaking the forum rules.

I have argued against this tenet multiple times, and showed how it is in error. If you report someone for breaking a this rule in this way then you are just wasting the MODs time.

Reply by: Kaaihn - click to view full reply 

12254

Do you consider the GW FAQs to be official or not? @ 2009/09/23 15:16:50

Post by: Kaaihn

Demogerg wrote:

utan wrote:I'm yet another voice in the choir singing TMIR and the FAQ disclaimer are in the same league. If you can't argue TMIR in YMDC threads, then you shouldn't be able to use the FAQ disclaimer either. After all, in the Tenets of YMDC, rule #2 states:

2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs.

There's your answer. When someone in a YMDC thread posts discounting the officially sanctioned FAQ, they should be reported to the MODs for breaking the forum rules.

I have argued against this tenet multiple times, and showed how it is in error. If you report someone for breaking a this rule in this way then you are just wasting the MODs time.

As I pointed out earlier, there is a difference between "I don't recognize FAQ's" and "I think this one answer in the FAQ is answered incorrectly, and here's why".

The first goes against the tenets, the second doesn't. There are incorrect rules in the main rulebook as well, but I don't see anyone saying they are allowed to ignore them because they think they are incorrect. You can talk about why you think it is incorrect, but that is completely different than pushing your own answer on people with the excuse that you are ignoring a rule from an official GW source.

Reply by: Demogerg - click to view full reply 

12030

Do you consider the GW FAQs to be official or not? @ 2009/09/23 15:32:30

Post by: Demogerg

Kaaihn wrote:

Demogerg wrote:

utan wrote:I'm yet another voice in the choir singing TMIR and the FAQ disclaimer are in the same league. If you can't argue TMIR in YMDC threads, then you shouldn't be able to use the FAQ disclaimer either. After all, in the Tenets of YMDC, rule #2 states:

2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs.

There's your answer. When someone in a YMDC thread posts discounting the officially sanctioned FAQ, they should be reported to the MODs for breaking the forum rules.

I have argued against this tenet multiple times, and showed how it is in error. If you report someone for breaking a this rule in this way then you are just wasting the MODs time.

As I pointed out earlier, there is a difference between "I don't recognize FAQ's" and "I think this one answer in the FAQ is answered incorrectly, and here's why".

The first goes against the tenets, the second doesn't. There are incorrect rules in the main rulebook as well, but I don't see anyone saying they are allowed to ignore them because they think they are incorrect. You can talk about why you think it is incorrect, but that is completely different than pushing your own answer on people with the excuse that you are ignoring a rule from an official GW source.

What house rules I choose to ignore is up to me, and I think it is immoral to push these house rules on to me just because they are house rules from some people who work in a studio on the other side of the Atlantic. This is a forum about how we call the rules, house rule discussion is fine, but there is a very strong distinction between house rules and actual rules.

Reply by: Elessar - click to view full reply 

13271

Do you consider the GW FAQs to be official or not? @ 2009/09/23 15:44:37

Post by: Elessar

The most common failure of YMDC comes up again...This thread is about game theory, not game practice. Maybe Gwar! is telling the truth, maybe he's exaggerating - either way, we all use the FAQs to some extent and know they're Official GW Material, but NOT Official Rules.

Also, I think Afrikan Blonde is trolling, yes. Since you asked.

Reply by: Frazzled - click to view full reply 

221

Do you consider the GW FAQs to be official or not? @ 2009/09/23 15:49:44

Post by: Frazzled

Demogerg wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:

Demogerg wrote:

utan wrote:I'm yet another voice in the choir singing TMIR and the FAQ disclaimer are in the same league. If you can't argue TMIR in YMDC threads, then you shouldn't be able to use the FAQ disclaimer either. After all, in the Tenets of YMDC, rule #2 states:

2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs.

There's your answer. When someone in a YMDC thread posts discounting the officially sanctioned FAQ, they should be reported to the MODs for breaking the forum rules.

I have argued against this tenet multiple times, and showed how it is in error. If you report someone for breaking a this rule in this way then you are just wasting the MODs time.

As I pointed out earlier, there is a difference between "I don't recognize FAQ's" and "I think this one answer in the FAQ is answered incorrectly, and here's why".

The first goes against the tenets, the second doesn't. There are incorrect rules in the main rulebook as well, but I don't see anyone saying they are allowed to ignore them because they think they are incorrect. You can talk about why you think it is incorrect, but that is completely different than pushing your own answer on people with the excuse that you are ignoring a rule from an official GW source.

What house rules I choose to ignore is up to me, and I think it is immoral to push these house rules on to me just because they are house rules from some people who work in a studio on the other side of the Atlantic. This is a forum about how we call the rules, house rule discussion is fine, but there is a very strong distinction between house rules and actual rules.

Except of course, those "house rules" are by the guys who wrote the rules.

Reply by: Afrikan Blonde - click to view full reply 

17364

Do you consider the GW FAQs to be official or not? @ 2009/09/23 15:49:46

Post by: Afrikan Blonde

I think we can agree it is important to know how the vast majority feels about whether or not the FAQs are official. Simply stated I am tired of the redundant phrase

But the FAQs are not official, GW even said so!

:(

Reply by: Gwar! - click to view full reply 

12265

Do you consider the GW FAQs to be official or not? @ 2009/09/23 15:51:05

Post by: Gwar!

Frazzled wrote:Except of course, those "house rules" are by the guys who wrote the rules.

Except, they didn't half the time. Yakface did...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Afrikan Blonde wrote:But the FAQs are not official, GW even said so!

It's the truth, so why can we not state it?

Reply by: Frazzled - click to view full reply 

221

Do you consider the GW FAQs to be official or not? @ 2009/09/23 15:52:52

Post by: Frazzled

Gwar! wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Except of course, those "house rules" are by the guys who wrote the rules.

Except, they didn't half the time. Yakface did...

And they agreed with them.

Reply by: Demogerg - click to view full reply 

12030

Do you consider the GW FAQs to be official or not? @ 2009/09/23 16:04:20

Post by: Demogerg

Frazzled wrote:

Demogerg wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:

Demogerg wrote:

utan wrote:I'm yet another voice in the choir singing TMIR and the FAQ disclaimer are in the same league. If you can't argue TMIR in YMDC threads, then you shouldn't be able to use the FAQ disclaimer either. After all, in the Tenets of YMDC, rule #2 states:

2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs.

There's your answer. When someone in a YMDC thread posts discounting the officially sanctioned FAQ, they should be reported to the MODs for breaking the forum rules.

I have argued against this tenet multiple times, and showed how it is in error. If you report someone for breaking a this rule in this way then you are just wasting the MODs time.

As I pointed out earlier, there is a difference between "I don't recognize FAQ's" and "I think this one answer in the FAQ is answered incorrectly, and here's why".

The first goes against the tenets, the second doesn't. There are incorrect rules in the main rulebook as well, but I don't see anyone saying they are allowed to ignore them because they think they are incorrect. You can talk about why you think it is incorrect, but that is completely different than pushing your own answer on people with the excuse that you are ignoring a rule from an official GW source.

What house rules I choose to ignore is up to me, and I think it is immoral to push these house rules on to me just because they are house rules from some people who work in a studio on the other side of the Atlantic. This is a forum about how we call the rules, house rule discussion is fine, but there is a very strong distinction between house rules and actual rules.

Except of course, those "house rules" are by the guys who wrote the rules.

Which makes no difference. If a Senator wrote a "house-law" for while you are on his property that said something to the effect of "no one is allowed to pass gas" and offered it online as a "house-law" to help you out with pesky interlopers it has as much effect on actual laws as GW's FAQs have on the actual rules.

Reply by: Afrikan Blonde - click to view full reply 

17364

Do you consider the GW FAQs to be official or not? @ 2009/09/23 16:16:00

Post by: Afrikan Blonde

Possession is nine tenths of the law. If you get busted with a pound of cocaine your ass is grass.

Reply by: Elessar - click to view full reply 

13271

Do you consider the GW FAQs to be official or not? @ 2009/09/23 16:33:05

Post by: Elessar

I've played against an official playtester. Gwar! knows the rules better than him. It's reasonable to assume that he also knows the rules better than the Design Team.

Reply by: Frazzled - click to view full reply 

221

Do you consider the GW FAQs to be official or not? @ 2009/09/23 16:34:55

Post by: Frazzled

Elessar wrote:I've played against an official playtester. Gwar! knows the rules better than him. It's reasonable to assume that he also knows the rules better than the Design Team.

Official playtesters are irrelevant.
Your assumptions cannot be supported in this context.

Reply by: Gwar! - click to view full reply 

12265

Do you consider the GW FAQs to be official or not? @ 2009/09/23 16:37:51

Post by: Gwar!

Frazzled wrote:

Elessar wrote:I've played against an official playtester. Gwar! knows the rules better than him. It's reasonable to assume that he also knows the rules better than the Design Team.

Official playtesters are irrelevant.
Your assumptions cannot be supported in this context.

Nor can yours. How do you know the people who write the game wrote the FAQs?

@Elessar: Having spoken to a few, I can say a trained Labrador knows the rules better than a 3rd of them.

Reply by: Elessar - click to view full reply 

13271

Do you consider the GW FAQs to be official or not? @ 2009/09/23 16:48:15

Post by: Elessar

Frazzled wrote:

Elessar wrote:I've played against an official playtester. Gwar! knows the rules better than him. It's reasonable to assume that he also knows the rules better than the Design Team.

Official playtesters are irrelevant.
Your assumptions cannot be supported in this context.

How can people who have an influence on Rules-Writing be irrelevant, unless... The opinions of the Design Team as to how the game SHOULD be played are ALSO irrelevant!

Reply by: Frazzled - click to view full reply 

221

Do you consider the GW FAQs to be official or not? @ 2009/09/23 16:49:12

Post by: Frazzled

Official playtesters are irrelevant.
Your assumptions cannot be supported in this context.

Nor can yours. How do you know the people who write the game wrote the FAQs?

I have no assumptions.
They are on the GW website and are an official GW publication. Its irrelevant who wrote them. They are GW's official publication.

@Elessar: Having spoken to a few, I can say a trained Labrador knows the rules better than a 3rd of them.

Again, in addition to being insulting adn a bit presumptuous, its irrelevant.

The problem with young people in general is that they think they know everything. Your elders will suddenly become geniuses as you transition from a teen ogre to a mature adult.

Demogerg wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:

Demogerg wrote:

utan wrote:I'm yet another voice in the choir singing TMIR and the FAQ disclaimer are in the same league. If you can't argue TMIR in YMDC threads, then you shouldn't be able to use the FAQ disclaimer either. After all, in the Tenets of YMDC, rule #2 states:

2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs.

There's your answer. When someone in a YMDC thread posts discounting the officially sanctioned FAQ, they should be reported to the MODs for breaking the forum rules.

I have argued against this tenet multiple times, and showed how it is in error. If you report someone for breaking a this rule in this way then you are just wasting the MODs time.

As I pointed out earlier, there is a difference between "I don't recognize FAQ's" and "I think this one answer in the FAQ is answered incorrectly, and here's why".

The first goes against the tenets, the second doesn't. There are incorrect rules in the main rulebook as well, but I don't see anyone saying they are allowed to ignore them because they think they are incorrect. You can talk about why you think it is incorrect, but that is completely different than pushing your own answer on people with the excuse that you are ignoring a rule from an official GW source.

What house rules I choose to ignore is up to me, and I think it is immoral to push these house rules on to me just because they are house rules from some people who work in a studio on the other side of the Atlantic. This is a forum about how we call the rules, house rule discussion is fine, but there is a very strong distinction between house rules and actual rules.

They are house rules. You don't have to use them in a friendly game if you don't agree to.

Completely separate from that issue, they are clarifications of rules that GW feels are a grey area currently. As such the discussion of one of those rules cannot have a clear answer. You may think it does, but GW has told you it does not, which means you might want to rethink how you are determining answers since the company making the game is telling you that you are wrong.

Don't forget a FAQ answer is a final step answer, where a RAW answer is a first step answer. That's where the disconnect on rules forums comes from. With the exception of the minority of 40K Fundamentalists, people asking for answers are looking for final step answers, not an intellectual discussion about an answer restricted to the RAW stage.

I highly doubt anyone is going to call you down for politely stating that even though a FAQ addresses an issue, you want to discuss just the RAW answer to a question as a mental exercise.

Kaaihn wrote:

Demogerg wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:

Demogerg wrote:

utan wrote:I'm yet another voice in the choir singing TMIR and the FAQ disclaimer are in the same league. If you can't argue TMIR in YMDC threads, then you shouldn't be able to use the FAQ disclaimer either. After all, in the Tenets of YMDC, rule #2 states:

2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs.

There's your answer. When someone in a YMDC thread posts discounting the officially sanctioned FAQ, they should be reported to the MODs for breaking the forum rules.

I have argued against this tenet multiple times, and showed how it is in error. If you report someone for breaking a this rule in this way then you are just wasting the MODs time.

As I pointed out earlier, there is a difference between "I don't recognize FAQ's" and "I think this one answer in the FAQ is answered incorrectly, and here's why".

The first goes against the tenets, the second doesn't. There are incorrect rules in the main rulebook as well, but I don't see anyone saying they are allowed to ignore them because they think they are incorrect. You can talk about why you think it is incorrect, but that is completely different than pushing your own answer on people with the excuse that you are ignoring a rule from an official GW source.

What house rules I choose to ignore is up to me, and I think it is immoral to push these house rules on to me just because they are house rules from some people who work in a studio on the other side of the Atlantic. This is a forum about how we call the rules, house rule discussion is fine, but there is a very strong distinction between house rules and actual rules.

They are house rules. You don't have to use them in a friendly game if you don't agree to.

Completely separate from that issue, they are clarifications of rules that GW feels are a grey area currently. As such the discussion of one of those rules cannot have a clear answer. You may think it does, but GW has told you it does not, which means you might want to rethink how you are determining answers since the company making the game is telling you that you are wrong.

Don't forget a FAQ answer is a final step answer, where a RAW answer is a first step answer. That's where the disconnect on rules forums comes from. With the exception of the minority of 40K Fundamentalists, people asking for answers are looking for final step answers, not an intellectual discussion about an answer restricted to the RAW stage.

I highly doubt anyone is going to call you down for politely stating that even though a FAQ addresses an issue, you want to discuss just the RAW answer to a question as a mental exercise.

A FAQ is a set of answers to Frequently Asked Questions, when someone asks GW about a rule, its not necesarily because the rules have a grey area, and it is most definately because said person does not understand the rules. GW issues responses to questions as examples of house rules (specifically, their house rules) to clarify situations, not as a modification to the rules as they have been published. When a question is asked enough times about a rule that many people may find difficult to understand (although it may have a very specific and direct answer within the rules) then GW puts it on the website to get people to stop bothering them with questions. These are still simply examples of how some players modify the game based on their opinions and not based on what the published material states, in the same manner, a politician might not agree with the death penalty, but his state laws might support it, if you ask the politician about it he will always avoid sentencing someone to the death penalty- he may even go as far as to appoint judges who agree with his opinion. However, unless this politician changes the laws of his state, the death penalty is still there, to claim that the state doesn't have the death penalty because they havent killed anyone in 4 years, and the current governer is opposed to it is erroneous.

The opinions of a person in a place of power mean nothing unless said person uses his or her power to change the status quo. What you read in FAQs are opinions, and if they really wanted to change the rules they could, but they have not.

No the FAQ states how to play the game, not citing some examples of how you can play the game. Do you play a rule differently depending on how you feel that day? It does not work that way.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:No the FAQ states how to play the game, not citing some examples of how you can play the game. Do you play a rule differently depending on how you feel that day? It does not work that way.

No, the FAQ states one way to play the game, and also states that the FAQs are house rules that are not actual rules.

Gwar! wrote:

Afrikan Blonde wrote:No the FAQ states how to play the game, not citing some examples of how you can play the game. Do you play a rule differently depending on how you feel that day? It does not work that way.

No, the FAQ states one way to play the game, and also states that the FAQs are house rules that are not actual rules.

The BRB also states one way to play the game and it also states that the rules within are more like guidelines that can be changed to suit both players.

Demogerg wrote:
Which makes no difference. If a Senator wrote a "house-law" for while you are on his property that said something to the effect of "no one is allowed to pass gas" and offered it online as a "house-law" to help you out with pesky interlopers it has as much effect on actual laws as GW's FAQs have on the actual rules.

Real Life (and fairly vague) comparison with no substance in this conversation.

Elessar wrote:I've played against an official playtester. Gwar! knows the rules better than him. It's reasonable to assume that he also knows the rules better than the Design Team.

Entirely irrelevant to this discussion, if the FAQ was written by a giant squid, it remains posted on the company site of the producers of the game and holds value.

Gwar wrote: @Elessar: Having spoken to a few, I can say a trained Labrador knows the rules better than a 3rd of them.
How can people who have an influence on Rules-Writing be irrelevant, unless... The opinions of the Design Team as to how the game SHOULD be played are ALSO irrelevant!

The creator of the document is not the issue, the validity or lack thereof, as you are trying to ascertain, is meaningless, it is the endorsement or the lack thereof, from the company that is the issue here. The documents are produced on the official site, they carry a disclaimer with the same weight as the disclaimer from the second page of the rulebook, something people on your 'side' of this discussion keep skimming over very conveniently.

Kaaihn wrote:

Demogerg wrote:
What house rules I choose to ignore is up to me, and I think it is immoral to push these house rules on to me just because they are house rules from some people who work in a studio on the other side of the Atlantic. This is a forum about how we call the rules, house rule discussion is fine, but there is a very strong distinction between house rules and actual rules.

They are house rules. You don't have to use them in a friendly game if you don't agree to.

Not Correct if you are ignoring The Most Important Rule then you should be ignoring the FAQ disclaimer, if you afford the FAQ Disclaimer validity, then you should also embrace The Most Important Rule.
So, discussion and agreement. Immoral? Rediculous. The FAQs are the way the games designers play the rules out, nothing immoral about accepting those decisions as the best means to play, your wording is inciteful and hyperbole. You've gone on to state you'll play as you want to? Why that's just like the Most Important Rule, so if your opponent comes up with an idea to make the game more playable or faster, then you would afford him or her the same right? Since ANY rule is as open to change or acceptance as the FAQs.

Again, since folks aren't processing this, the disclaimer for the FAQs hold precisely the same weight AS WRITTEN as the Most Important Rule. To accept one without the other is to lack consistancy and any talk of 'I will use that or won't use the other' is employing personal choice and NOT using the rules are written.

Modquisition on:
I've gone through about six reports for this thread. Lets not use the report mechanism wontonly here guys.

Frazzled wrote:Modquisition on:
I've gone through about six reports for this thread. Lets not use the report mechanism wontonly here guys.

I am not, I am just applying the same level that my detractors use.

To me the FAQs are official, but still house rules.

Thus they are official house rules, meaning they are optional. I agree with some of the answers given, which I use, but I modify them as my opponent and I see fit.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Again, since folks aren't processing this, the disclaimer for the FAQs hold precisely the same weight AS WRITTEN as the Most Important Rule. To accept one without the other is to lack consistancy and any talk of 'I will use that or won't use the other' is employing personal choice and NOT using the rules are written.

I accept both TMIR and the FAQ disclaimer. But that fails to either support or detract from my standpoint that the FAQ is not official rules and that the rulebook is. TMIR states (paraphrasing here) 'the rules are not important and change what you want'. The FAQ states (these are house rules). If TMIR called the rulebook 'house rules' I would agree with your belief that FAQ = rules. If The FAQ said 'these rules follow TMIR' or if it restated TMIR at the top of it or siad 'these are rules to be treated like the rulebook rules' or said 'treat these as rules' or any other variation thereof I would agree with your standpoint.

GW calls one rules and one house rules and never calls either the other way. This does not dictate whether or not someone should use or not use any gven rule, but it does seem to clearly define to me that they are two distinct types of rules - one being the rules, and the other the house rules.

I would also note that TMIR allows someone playing the game to treat the rules "as sacrosanct" so certainly Gwar! has a solid GW backed foundation to his cries of RAW and RAW only. (Until he shows up to game with you with a gun and forces you to play that way, then you can deride him freely for those actions)

Thor665 wrote:I would also note that TMIR allows someone playing the game to treat the rules "as sacrosanct" so certainly Gwar! has a solid GW backed foundation to his cries of RAW and RAW only.

QFT. Funny how the people who cry "But TMIR says I can!" forget this

Demogerg wrote:A FAQ is a set of answers to Frequently Asked Questions, when someone asks GW about a rule, its not necesarily because the rules have a grey area

Actually the preface to the FAQ page that folks love to quote so much specifically says they deal with a grey area, where there is no right or wrong answer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:
What house rules I choose to ignore is up to me, and I think it is immoral to push these house rules on to me just because they are house rules from some people who work in a studio on the other side of the Atlantic. This is a forum about how we call the rules, house rule discussion is fine, but there is a very strong distinction between house rules and actual rules.
They are house rules. You don't have to use them in a friendly game if you don't agree to.

Not Correct if you are ignoring The Most Important Rule then you should be ignoring the FAQ disclaimer, if you afford the FAQ Disclaimer validity, then you should also embrace The Most Important Rule.
So, discussion and agreement. Immoral? Rediculous. The FAQs are the way the games designers play the rules out, nothing immoral about accepting those decisions as the best means to play, your wording is inciteful and hyperbole. You've gone on to state you'll play as you want to? Why that's just like the Most Important Rule, so if your opponent comes up with an idea to make the game more playable or faster, then you would afford him or her the same right? Since ANY rule is as open to change or acceptance as the FAQs.

Again, since folks aren't processing this, the disclaimer for the FAQs hold precisely the same weight AS WRITTEN as the Most Important Rule. To accept one without the other is to lack consistancy and any talk of 'I will use that or won't use the other' is employing personal choice and NOT using the rules are written.

Something went wrong with what you were quoting. That is not from me, that is from Demogerg. Please edit, I do not want what I consider to be ridiculous nonsense attributed to my name. Only the last sentence is mine, the "They are house rules. You don't have to use them in a friendly game if you don't agree to." statement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

Thor665 wrote:I would also note that TMIR allows someone playing the game to treat the rules "as sacrosanct" so certainly Gwar! has a solid GW backed foundation to his cries of RAW and RAW only.

QFT. Funny how the people who cry "But TMIR says I can!" forget this

That's because it isn't actually true. RAW states that the given rules are a framework. A framework is pretty much the exact opposite of a complete and wholly sacrosanct body of work.

Thor665 wrote:
I accept both TMIR and the FAQ disclaimer. But that fails to either support or detract from my standpoint that the FAQ is not official rules and that the rulebook is. TMIR states (paraphrasing here) 'the rules are not important and change what you want'. The FAQ states (these are house rules). If TMIR called the rulebook 'house rules' I would agree with your belief that FAQ = rules. If The FAQ said 'these rules follow TMIR' or if it restated TMIR at the top of it or siad 'these are rules to be treated like the rulebook rules' or said 'treat these as rules' or any other variation thereof I would agree with your standpoint.

GW calls one rules and one house rules and never calls either the other way. This does not dictate whether or not someone should use or not use any gven rule, but it does seem to clearly define to me that they are two distinct types of rules - one being the rules, and the other the house rules.

Not correct I'm afraid, the statement that they are house rules only exists in the disclaimer, so if you are not accepting the disclaimer and not accepting The Most Important Rule of just rolling dice instead of looking up rules, then the FAQs ARE official rulings.

Either you accept the disclaimer and the most important rule or you accept a hard line on rules as written, which means you do not embrace the most important rule and don't embrace the disclaimer which states the FAQs are 'house rules'. All or nothing I'm afraid.

There is not avoiding it, you either;
-accept open and interpretive play and thereby accept you can pick and choose from the FAQs, roll off tough decisions or further alter the game as you see fit and is mutually consenting.
or
-Take what's written in the rulebook as sacrosanct, ignoring the most important rule on page 2 to do so and thereby eliminating the disclaimer for FAQs, which means you eliminate the mention of FAQs as 'house rules' and render them back to the status of official ruling by GW on how to play out situations.

Kaaihn wrote:

Demogerg wrote:A FAQ is a set of answers to Frequently Asked Questions, when someone asks GW about a rule, its not necesarily because the rules have a grey area

Actually the preface to the FAQ page that folks love to quote so much specifically says they deal with a grey area, where there is no right or wrong answer.

And what pisses me off is when they contradict areas that there IS a right answer. The RaW is clear that Deff Dreads get an extra attack, but the FAQ totally ignores this.

Gwar! wrote:

Thor665 wrote:I would also note that TMIR allows someone playing the game to treat the rules "as sacrosanct" so certainly Gwar! has a solid GW backed foundation to his cries of RAW and RAW only.

QFT. Funny how the people who cry "But TMIR says I can!" forget this

That's because it isn't actually true. RAW states that the given rules are a framework. A framework is pretty much the exact opposite of a complete and wholly sacrosanct body of work.

Gwar! wrote:
RaW says they are a framework for house rules. My House rule is We play as though RaW cures the Common Cold. How is that any less valid than me saying "TMIR lets me win on a 1+"?

Right, so personal interpretation of the rules then.

Thanks for clarifying that.

The poll is actually about whether people consider the FAQs to be official, not what GW say about it.

The fact that GW say they are not official but the majority (so far) polled take them to be official says something about the disconnect between GW and their audience.

Chapter Approved is house rules.

So if you have fun playing with the rules as sacrosanct, you are breaking the rule that says to have fun?

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Gwar! wrote:
RaW says they are a framework for house rules. My House rule is We play as though RaW cures the Common Cold. How is that any less valid than me saying "TMIR lets me win on a 1+"?

Right, so personal interpretation of the rules then.

Thanks for clarifying that.

How is "Play by the rules" a personal opinion? How is "Play by the Faqs" not?

Gwar! wrote:How is "Play by the rules" a personal opinion? How is "Play by the Faqs" not?

The most important rule Gwar:
"You can treat them as sacrosanct or mere guidelines - the choice is entirely yours." page 2, the BGB

So, you made the choice, that's your personal opinion. Fairly black and white to me.

Ok, but why does my "choice" hold less weight than someone using unofficial FAQs to let them include Leman Russ' in armies that are no longer allowed to have them?

I consider the FAQs official and strictly adhere to them because they meet three criteria:
1. They come from GW (I don't care who in GW... their janitors are no less qualified to interpret rules than, say, gav thorpe)
2. They aren't limited to a particular game type (i.e. apocalypse) or tournament (i.e. ard boyz).
3. They are readily verifiable (i.e. not a random redshirt ruling or email response)

So I voted for the first option.

-GK

GiantKiller wrote:I consider the FAQs official and strictly adhere to them because they meet three criteria:
1. They come from GW (I don't care who in GW... their janitors are no less qualified to interpret rules than, say, gav thorpe)
2. They aren't limited to a particular game type (i.e. apocalypse) or tournament (i.e. ard boyz).
3. They are readily verifiable (i.e. not a random redshirt ruling or email response)

So I voted for the first option.

-GK

So if an FAQ came out and said "Ultramarines actually use BS 10 instead of BS 4" but it was not an Errata, you would use it? Not to mention FAQs can easily be faked. Just edit the PDFs and print them out. Unless they go and verify it there on a Laptop, they will not know the difference. If you are able to compromise their Computer (or use your laptop with a fake self run server), you can make them think whatever you want. It's so easy its not even funny.

Gwar! wrote:why does my choice hold less weight than someone using unofficial FAQs to let them include Leman Russ' in armies that are no longer allowed to have them?

I'd say your choice holds exactly the same weight, given that we all get exactly one vote in this poll.

The only problem you might run into could be finding a sufficient number of opponents who've made the same choice.

-GK

Gwar! wrote:


So if an FAQ came out and said "Ultramarines actually use BS 10 instead of BS 4" but it was not an Errata, you would use it?

Every smurf would use it.....

And no, there is no change for statlines higher than +1 or -1 and commonly this would be a errata.

1hadhq wrote:

Gwar! wrote:So if an FAQ came out and said "Ultramarines actually use BS 10 instead of BS 4" but it was not an Errata, you would use it?

Every smurf would use it.....

And no, there is no change for statlines higher than +1 or -1 and commonly this would be a errata.

Ah but it is "Official", if you don't let me use it, you are a Cheater, and TFG and whatever other mean words I can call "people who play by the rules"!

What about if an FAQ stated "You may douse your opponents models in gasoline and set them alight whenever you cause a wound". Are you "FAQ are Official" people gonna let me do it?

The fact of the matter is, GW say the FAQs are house rules. House rules are not official by Definition. End of Discussion. This whole thread has just been one huge flamebait, and I feel like an idiot for falling for it (again).

A blizzard of more reports.
This thread is closed. Jeez.