14863
Post by: MasterSlowPoke
Heya. As we all know, the 40k Rulebook FAQ was updated to version 1.1 today. At the beginning of it is a new blurb:
Each update is split into three sections: Errata, Amendments, and ‘Frequently Asked Questions’. The Errata corrects any mistakes in the book, while the Amendments bring the book up to date with the latest version of the rules. The Frequently Asked Questions (or ‘FAQ’) section answers commonly asked questions about the rules. Although you can mark corrections directly in your army book, this is by no means necessary – just keep a copy of the update with your army book.
There is no mention of FAQ sections being merely "official house rules" - the FAQ answers are real answers. Can we rejoice and no longer have to worry about players springing the " FAQs aren't rules" answer, and all finally play the same game?
32277
Post by: phyrephly
I believe Gwar will fight you on this 
As a side note, our gaming group, and related communities use the FAQ's as hard rules and have always done so.
32598
Post by: BloodThirSTAR
They removed the clause regarding house rules, it's official - no question about it now. 
14863
Post by: MasterSlowPoke
The clause wasn't there on older FAQs - it's on the webpage preceding the list of FAQs. That page is still there, but an official rulebook update would overrule statement written two years ago outside of any FAQ/Update. I don't expect the webpage to last all that much longer, anyway.
24691
Post by: MasterDRD
I say this is a good thing and FINALLY a step in the right direction... This game's rules are too damn murky as it is without having to worry about the FAQ not being 'official'. There's a reason I stopped playing 40k, and it wasn't the prices. (ok, maybe they played a small role...  )
This shouldn't be a big deal to the 'houserulers', they can still deny the official rules and do it their own way all they damn well please. On the rare occasions when I play 40k it's usually a game type of my very own creation, cleverly titled 'The Variant'.
(For those curious, it involves picking any points value [typically under 500] and both players [or all; 3 or more player games are common] building a list with those points, with no Force Org restrictions, and occasionally no codex restrictions either. Then each player rolls for deployment order, and EVERYTHING comes in via deepstrike during the deployment phase. Then Sieze the Initiative rolls happen to see if the turn order changes. There is no max limit of turns, you play until total annihilation or surrender. It's hella fun, try it some time!)
22547
Post by: ChrisCP
The document (currently) is labled as "WARHAMMER 40,000 RULEBOOK" that's good enough for me to consider any information contained to have the same weight as the rule book.
60
Post by: yakface
IT DOES NOT MATTER and it has never mattered.
Both players are always, always going to have to agree on how to play a rule. In order to play a game. So if one player doesn't agree with a GW FAQ ruling and 'refuses' to play with it and the other player does want to play with that ruling...what happens? The game doesn't get played unless both players come to some sort of agreement. If they can't come to an agreement (like in a tournament) then a judge will have to make a decision.
So regardless of whether a GW FAQ is labled 'official' or 'unofficial' it has absolutely no bearing on anything. Either both players agree to use the clarifications (or not) and the game gets played, or both players disagree on the ruling and then the game grinds to a halt until one player gives in or a third party makes a ruling.
There is no need to discuss it, no need to worry about it, FAQs are what they are regardless of what is written about them.
5182
Post by: SlaveToDorkness
phyrephly wrote:I believe Gwar will fight you on this
As a side note, our gaming group, and related communities use the FAQ's as hard rules and have always done so.
+1 (miiillliion!)
24691
Post by: MasterDRD
By that logic, the official rules in the rulebook don't matter either then, as long as someone else doesn't agree with them...
Ami doin it rite?
/sarcasm
11
Post by: ph34r
Hard rules. No doubt.
34666
Post by: jdjamesdean@mail.com
I'm ok with a current rules update,
PS I disagree with jetbikes,
12620
Post by: Che-Vito
60
Post by: yakface
Che-Vito wrote:
Sounds like someone is getting a little defensive when it seems like INAT could be useless with a bit more work from GW on their own, official FAQs.
???
First off, how does what I said have anything to do with the INAT? We've always treated GW's FAQs as 'official' because every tournament I've ever heard of does (and the point of the INAT is to be a tournament FAQ). The INAT has always (and will always) be very, very unofficial, in that everybody knows it is just a fan creation to be used by those Tournament Organizers that find it useful isntead of writing their own FAQs.
Second, I would love nothing more then to have GW make the INAT FAQ completely pointless by frequently updating their FAQs...that's always been my dream and was the whole point of starting the INAT project in the first place (to make a FAQ that GW could take questions from...which they have many times including this latest update)!
So, yeah...I don't know where the idea that I'm defensive about the INAT comes from, because the idea that can be made redundant sounds utterly fantastic to me!
22547
Post by: ChrisCP
MasterDRD wrote:By that logic, the official rules in the rulebook don't matter either then, as long as someone else doesn't agree with them...
Ami doin it rite?
/sarcasm
That's TMIR... 
yakface wrote:
because the idea that can be made redundant sounds utterly fantastic to me!
Be, like, all 'yaaaay' and stuff if GW offered better non-product customer support.
14863
Post by: MasterSlowPoke
yakface wrote:
IT DOES NOT MATTER and it has never mattered.
Both players are always, always going to have to agree on how to play a rule. In order to play a game. So if one player doesn't agree with a GW FAQ ruling and 'refuses' to play with it and the other player does want to play with that ruling...what happens? The game doesn't get played unless both players come to some sort of agreement. If they can't come to an agreement (like in a tournament) then a judge will have to make a decision.
So regardless of whether a GW FAQ is labled 'official' or 'unofficial' it has absolutely no bearing on anything. Either both players agree to use the clarifications (or not) and the game gets played, or both players disagree on the ruling and then the game grinds to a halt until one player gives in or a third party makes a ruling.
There is no need to discuss it, no need to worry about it, FAQs are what they are regardless of what is written about them.
While I agree that in one sense the statement is meaningless - no one needs GW's permission to play by alternate rules, so there was no reason for GW to grant it. The statement, however, did matter in that it obstructed easily solving rules questions. Just look back at this forum back in May or so, before the status of GW FAQs as "hard" rules was made a tenant of YMDC. In every thread that involved an hotly contested FAQ answer, arguments were had because of the fact that FAQ answers were "soft" and didn't count. This served only to confuse players not as familiar with the minutia of the rules.
Many players around the world ignored the FAQs because of the "soft" status, regardless of any opinion they had about the situation in question. Just yesterday I commented a battle report where Defensive Grenades were used to negate the extra attack granted from a successful Counter-Attack test, something that breaks both RAW and the Space Wolf FAQ. I referenced the FAQ in my comment, as it certainly is easier to post an explicit answer than to explain exactly how two completely separate rules interact. I was hand waved away because their club doesn't use FAQs, and hostile told not to continue the subject. This attitude wouldn't exist if not for that blurb on the 2008 "Shrine of Knowledge" web page.
It's ridiculous that a companies FAQ on their own game should be regarded as unofficial by default. I can't think of any other system that has done such a thing. Imagine if in the "Building Your Army" section of the rulebook said that the points costs in a codex were merely guidelines - the game would be pandemonium. If a group of players think the game would be more fun if a rule were different and play as such, that's fine - I'd even say good for the hobby. Rules updates being rejected for no good reason is bad for the hobby, and that is why retracting that "meaningless" rule is a meaningful thing.
yakface wrote:So, yeah...I don't know where the idea that I'm defensive about the INAT comes from, because the idea that can be made redundant sounds utterly fantastic to me!
Che-vito really doesn't like the INAT FAQ, and will manufacture all manner of reasons to make a post about it.
60
Post by: yakface
MasterSlowPoke wrote:
While I agree that in one sense the statement is meaningless - no one needs GW's permission to play by alternate rules, so there was no reason for GW to grant it. The statement, however, did matter in that it obstructed easily solving rules questions. Just look back at this forum back in May or so, before the status of GW FAQs as "hard" rules was made a tenant of YMDC. In every thread that involved an hotly contested FAQ answer, arguments were had because of the fact that FAQ answers were "soft" and didn't count. This served only to confuse players not as familiar with the minutia of the rules.
Many players around the world ignored the FAQs because of the "soft" status, regardless of any opinion they had about the situation in question. Just yesterday I commented a battle report where Defensive Grenades were used to negate the extra attack granted from a successful Counter-Attack test, something that breaks both RAW and the Space Wolf FAQ. I referenced the FAQ in my comment, as it certainly is easier to post an explicit answer than to explain exactly how two completely separate rules interact. I was hand waved away because their club doesn't use FAQs, and hostile told not to continue the subject. This attitude wouldn't exist if not for that blurb on the 2008 "Shrine of Knowledge" web page.
It's ridiculous that a companies FAQ on their own game should be regarded as unofficial by default. I can't think of any other system that has done such a thing. Imagine if in the "Building Your Army" section of the rulebook said that the points costs in a codex were merely guidelines - the game would be pandemonium. If a group of players think the game would be more fun if a rule were different and play as such, that's fine - I'd even say good for the hobby. Rules updates being rejected for no good reason is bad for the hobby, and that is why retracting that "meaningless" rule is a meaningful thing.
I know exactly what you're saying, but I think perhaps you over-estimate the level that people 'ignore' GW FAQs. I'm sure there are some gaming groups out there that do (you quoted a situation involving at least one), but the vast majority of players and every tournament I've ever heard of use GW's FAQs.
In reality, even those gaming groups that claim they are 'not using' GW's FAQs actually are...they follow the rulings in the FAQs they agree with and ignore the ones they don't. I really don't think this is any different from what gaming groups did before the 'shrine of knowledge' blurb went up. I know many situations where gaming groups or even tournaments ignored certain FAQ rulings because they thought they were stupid or went against their interpretation of the rules.
And to be fair, that's precisely what the Shrine of Knowledge blurb is saying:
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.
Really read what it says. It says that the FAQs are useful for pick-up and tournament games where players don't have a common set of house-rules. In their own gaming group, if players want to come up with something different, then they should do so.
So what that actually says if you read it, is that, by default, the FAQs are used if players don't have a common agreement to play another way.
I think the only thing GW is trying to get across with this section is that you shouldn't browbeat your opponent to play with the FAQ rulings if you both think they're stupid. That may sound redundant since players can *always* institute any rule they want if they both agree, but more and more players seem to forget the fact that games can and should be altered by the players as they see fit. That theme has been a battle that GW has been fighting as their games have become more commonplace, and the 'Shrine of Knowledge' blurb is just one more volley in that war.
For example, you said: "Imagine if in the "Building Your Army" section of the rulebook said that the points costs in a codex were merely guidelines - the game would be pandemonium." I think that's precisely the issue! The building your army sections of the rulebook ARE guidelines that players can break at their whim, just like any and every other rule in the rulebook!
Players continue to get caught up in ridiculous levels of rules heirarchy. We create forums and argue about rules. We create 115 page FAQs, etc, etc, etc. But in GW's mind I think they're trying to reiterate that this is a GAME and players can adapt the game as they see fit...even if that fact is essentially redundant to most of us.
Now, most certainly there has been more online arguments online about this topic since the 'Shrine of Knowledge' blurb was posted by GW, but honestly I think that's mainly just the fact that people enjoy arguing on the internet and will use any excuse to do so.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
The Shrine page still states that the FAQs are houserules. It would be much better if they simply removed that page....
11988
Post by: Dracos
Just for the sake of argument, the biggest tourny that runs in my city (winnipeg) and has events in 3 other cities (including dallas) does not use the GW FAQ even though it uses the Errata.
http://www.astronomi-con.com/
edit: As it so happens I don't care one way or the other. For discussion's sake, I like to find out what the rules say and will argue a point that I think is correct. Practically, its far better to just come to an agreement and be consistent in the application of whatever set of rules you agree to play under.
28383
Post by: Mahtamori
Interesting, the new FAQ has certain vehicles destroyed when arriving from reserves by virtue of those vehicles simply being unable to fully enter the battlefield. That seals that debate.
99
Post by: insaniak
That only really has an effect on Superheavies. It just makes it something you'll have to resolve in Apocalypse games if you're keeping superheavy tanks in Reserve.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Or if you immobilise yourself driving on.
24691
Post by: MasterDRD
Mahtamori wrote:Interesting, the new FAQ has certain vehicles destroyed when arriving from reserves by virtue of those vehicles simply being unable to fully enter the battlefield. That seals that debate.
Well I think we can ALL agree, even the diehard official rules followers (of which I am to a degree) that that is simply too slowed to follow...
22547
Post by: ChrisCP
Mahtamori wrote:Interesting, the new FAQ has certain vehicles destroyed when arriving from reserves by virtue of those vehicles simply being unable to fully enter the battlefield. That seals that debate.
Huh? What vehicles can't more more than 6", that couldn't fit on the table by pivoting?
12134
Post by: Oscarius
Uhmm...I think the monolith (Unsure though) and some super heavy's.
4680
Post by: time wizard
Oscarius wrote:Uhmm...I think the monolith (Unsure though) and some super heavy's.
The Monolith is 6" square and can fit on the table by moving on. Just barely, but it can make it.
5182
Post by: SlaveToDorkness
nosferatu1001 wrote:Or if you immobilise yourself driving on.
I would say that constitutes a roll that would prevent you from moving on, so you wouldn't have to make it.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Incorrect. You can only disregard special rules *of the unit* when moving on - and vehicles taking a dangerous terrain test is NOT a special rule of the unit.
4680
Post by: time wizard
SlaveToDorkness wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:Or if you immobilise yourself driving on.
I would say that constitutes a roll that would prevent you from moving on, so you wouldn't have to make it.
The BRB says if a unit has a special rule that would prevent it moving on the rule is ingonred.
A vehicle failing a dangerous terrain test and becomming immobilized is not a special rule, it is a rule that covers all vehicles equally.
EDIT: Ninja'd by nosferatu!
5182
Post by: SlaveToDorkness
A vehicle is a Unit- Check
A vehicle has a special rule about moving through terrain- Check
A vehicle is stopped if it rolls a 1- Check
A stopped vehicle is prevented from entering play- Check
what have I missed?
28383
Post by: Mahtamori
It's not a special rule, it's a general rule.
5182
Post by: SlaveToDorkness
It's special for vehicles. How special does it have to be to be special?
24750
Post by: forkbanger
SlaveToDorkness wrote:It's special for vehicles. How special does it have to be to be special?
Your vehicle having something like-
Junkheap-This vehicle is terrible in every way. Roll a d6 every time you move it. On a 1, the vehicle is immobilised.
That's a special rule that could stop it from moving on- Instinctive Behaviour can similarly stop a unit coming on to the board.
A dangerous/difficult terrain test isn't, and you don't get to ignore it.
1523
Post by: Saldiven
Hrm...I don't remember seeing this one in the FAQ before (and it's pink, so I assume it's new). I remember seeing some discussions online that interpreted the rule the opposite way to this GW Q&A:
Q: If a vehicle has a weapon with a limited amount of
shots, and it has none left, for example a hunter-killer
missile that has already been fired, does it count as a
weapon that can be destroyed by a Damaged - Weapon
Destroyed roll on the Vehicle Damage table? (p61)
A: No. Once a weapon cannot possibly fire again during
the battle it is effectively destroyed as far as Damaged -
Weapon Destroyed results on the Vehicle Damage table
are concerned.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, here's a (not so) surprising one from GW:
Q: If a model fires a template weapon out of a vehicle, will
the vehicle be hit if it is underneath the template? (p66)
A: No it will not be hit.
28383
Post by: Mahtamori
SlaveToDarkness: Each unit has a list of special rules. These can either be universal special rules or special rules as listed in that particular codex. A Wave Serpent's Energy Field is a special rule, but that it takes damage by landing in difficult terrain is not a very special rule. (Also the situation at hand is covered by the FAQ)
Saldiven: That's GW being somewhat through for once, and it does combat some of the awkwardness in their original rules you'll find under "Fun list of RAW". It's pretty damned welcome, actually, and it'd be nice if they'd keep it up.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
A rule that applies to EVERY vehicle in the game really isnt a special rule....
1523
Post by: Saldiven
@Mahtamori:
If you look through the updated FAQ, there were actually several more of these interesting gray areas that they answered. Automatically Appended Next Post: nosferatu1001 wrote:A rule that applies to EVERY vehicle in the game really isnt a special rule....
Agreed. For me, I would categorize a "special rule" to one that appears in a unit's description.
28383
Post by: Mahtamori
That's what I did, Saldiven, but there's still a few that aren't answered in full, although for some of them there's hints of how to handle things (such as they hint that the area of difficult terrain should be roughly the size of the vehicle exploded).
1523
Post by: Saldiven
Mahtamori wrote:That's what I did, Saldiven, but there's still a few that aren't answered in full, although for some of them there's hints of how to handle things (such as they hint that the area of difficult terrain should be roughly the size of the vehicle exploded).
Yeah, there are still some areas that aren't perfectly fixed, but it's an improvement.
33891
Post by: Grakmar
nosferatu1001 wrote:Or if you immobilise yourself driving on.
Or if you make a ram and don't explode the vehicle you were hitting.
11988
Post by: Dracos
Anyone notice the question that was changed that was not internally consistent?
There was a question about ICs in units and if they counted for being under half strength. When I read the FAQ last night it said something to the effect that 'the IC did count so a group of 6 that was joined by an IC would be under half strength if when it had 2 or less models' (which is some hard math fail). Now the question is changed to read that the IC does not count for determining if under 50% and the math fail is gone.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Under half strength for a unit of 6 is 2 or less, as 3 is AT half strength.
Not a mathS fail there
11988
Post by: Dracos
Except the question originally said the HQ did count, so 6+1 = 7, 7/2 = 3.5 so 3 would have been the answer.
edit: Then again I read it late at night, so maybe I just read it wrong. But if that's the case, why was it changed?
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Ah I read it as a group of 6 that had been joined - i.e. the group was 5 and then was joined to make 6.
12620
Post by: Che-Vito
35350
Post by: BuFFo
MasterDRD wrote:By that logic, the official rules in the rulebook don't matter either then, as long as someone else doesn't agree with them...
Ami doin it rite?
/sarcasm
They don't.
Read the first page in the introduction at the very top, under the Most Important Rule. No rule is set in stone. 40k is a fluid game where players are ENCOURAGED to invent their own rules to improve the narrative of the game. 40k has never been a 'set in stone' rules based tournament game, and it never will be. It will always be a relaxing hobby of painting toys and drinking beer over a friendly game on a rainy afternoon. The rules presented in any rule book are just guidelines for players to follow, which is clearly stated under the Most Important Rule.
33891
Post by: Grakmar
Dracos wrote:Anyone notice the question that was changed that was not internally consistent?
There was a question about ICs in units and if they counted for being under half strength. When I read the FAQ last night it said something to the effect that 'the IC did count so a group of 6 that was joined by an IC would be under half strength if when it had 2 or less models' (which is some hard math fail). Now the question is changed to read that the IC does not count for determining if under 50% and the math fail is gone.
Yeah, I had the same issue as you. The old question didn't make any sense. The only way their math worked was if they were saying " ID characters count for the number of currently alive models, but not the original starting total" So, a 6 model squad with an attached IC is at 117% strength. It made no sense.
But, they have fixed that. By completely reversing their decision
So, what other questions will be totally changed by this time tomorrow?
35973
Post by: Gibbsey
Grakmar wrote:Dracos wrote:Anyone notice the question that was changed that was not internally consistent?
There was a question about ICs in units and if they counted for being under half strength. When I read the FAQ last night it said something to the effect that 'the IC did count so a group of 6 that was joined by an IC would be under half strength if when it had 2 or less models' (which is some hard math fail). Now the question is changed to read that the IC does not count for determining if under 50% and the math fail is gone.
Yeah, I had the same issue as you. The old question didn't make any sense. The only way their math worked was if they were saying " ID characters count for the number of currently alive models, but not the original starting total" So, a 6 model squad with an attached IC is at 117% strength. It made no sense.
But, they have fixed that. By completely reversing their decision
So, what other questions will be totally changed by this time tomorrow?
Well a group of 6 that WAS joined by an IC would come to 6 models total since the IC has already joined and the total count is 6
not entirely clear but it is GW
9010
Post by: Rymafyr
BuFFo wrote:MasterDRD wrote:By that logic, the official rules in the rulebook don't matter either then, as long as someone else doesn't agree with them...
Ami doin it rite?
/sarcasm
They don't.
Read the first page in the introduction at the very top, under the Most Important Rule. No rule is set in stone. 40k is a fluid game where players are ENCOURAGED to invent their own rules to improve the narrative of the game. 40k has never been a 'set in stone' rules based tournament game, and it never will be. It will always be a relaxing hobby of painting toys and drinking beer over a friendly game on a rainy afternoon. The rules presented in any rule book are just guidelines for players to follow, which is clearly stated under the Most Important Rule.
And while this is a broad statement...I agree. This game breaks down into roughly two camps: The players that just want to have some fun and the players that want to be competitive. Honestly, you really can't be in both camps, at least simultaneously. However, since I have no real gaming club of my own, I very much like that GW has updated and officially recognize their errata and faq's. So yeah, I tend to have a lot of disgust for those competitive, tournament, rules-lawyering types as they suck the fun right out of the game for me but I respect that they themselves are having fun in that fashion. Really, make of the official FAQ what you want of it.
35350
Post by: BuFFo
Rymafyr wrote:BuFFo wrote:They don't.
Read the first page in the introduction at the very top, under the Most Important Rule. No rule is set in stone. 40k is a fluid game where players are ENCOURAGED to invent their own rules to improve the narrative of the game. 40k has never been a 'set in stone' rules based tournament game, and it never will be. It will always be a relaxing hobby of painting toys and drinking beer over a friendly game on a rainy afternoon. The rules presented in any rule book are just guidelines for players to follow, which is clearly stated under the Most Important Rule.
And while this is a broad statement...I agree. This game breaks down into roughly two camps: The players that just want to have some fun and the players that want to be competitive. Honestly, you really can't be in both camps, at least simultaneously. However, since I have no real gaming club of my own, I very much like that GW has updated and officially recognize their errata and faq's. So yeah, I tend to have a lot of disgust for those competitive, tournament, rules-lawyering types as they suck the fun right out of the game for me but I respect that they themselves are having fun in that fashion. Really, make of the official FAQ what you want of it.
Precisely. If a person's idea of fun is playing strictly by the written rules, more power to him! The issue arises between two strangers, one of which is attempting to force FAQs down the throat of his opponent. This is the situation I have issue with. not the FAQs themselves, but people who forget what the game is about and attempt to treat the game, the FAQs and all it's 'rulings' as a Bible that must be followed to a fault.
60
Post by: yakface
Grakmar wrote:Dracos wrote:Anyone notice the question that was changed that was not internally consistent?
There was a question about ICs in units and if they counted for being under half strength. When I read the FAQ last night it said something to the effect that 'the IC did count so a group of 6 that was joined by an IC would be under half strength if when it had 2 or less models' (which is some hard math fail). Now the question is changed to read that the IC does not count for determining if under 50% and the math fail is gone.
Yeah, I had the same issue as you. The old question didn't make any sense. The only way their math worked was if they were saying " ID characters count for the number of currently alive models, but not the original starting total" So, a 6 model squad with an attached IC is at 117% strength. It made no sense.
But, they have fixed that. By completely reversing their decision
So, what other questions will be totally changed by this time tomorrow?
Y'know what else is interesting about that? The URL for the old FAQ is still working and both FAQs are labeled as v1.1, so two players could each have a print out of a v1.1 FAQ both with different rulings on that one question!
Crazy. That and the reversed ruling seems terrible to me personally, but I digress.
33891
Post by: Grakmar
yakface wrote:Y'know what else is interesting about that? The URL for the old FAQ is still working and both FAQs are labeled as v1.1, so two players could each have a print out of a v1.1 FAQ both with different rulings on that one question!
Crazy. That and the reversed ruling seems terrible to me personally, but I digress.
Well, at least they each have the proper "last updated" date. So, if you do end up with both players have a different printout, one will at least be more current.
And, I agree. The old ruling, with better wording, makes more sense. Now, if I have a squad that was 5+ IC (6 total) that is down to 2+ IC (3 total), I'm below 50%!!!
Does the same logic apply to 25% casualties from shooting?
6846
Post by: solkan
Unit size with or without IC's is going to cause problems, though.
Let's say that you have a 5 man squad and you join 3 IC's to it. If the 3 IC's and 2 guys from the squad die, do you want to call that below half?
60
Post by: yakface
Che-Vito wrote:
I was simply pointing out that Yakface seemed to react strongly to something that can only help a lot of rules arguments.
I'm wondering what exactly you think I was reacting strongly to? Because if you're referring to the concept of GW potentially labeling their FAQs as fully official I am completely and totally onboard with that.
Grakmar wrote:yakface wrote:Y'know what else is interesting about that? The URL for the old FAQ is still working and both FAQs are labeled as v1.1, so two players could each have a print out of a v1.1 FAQ both with different rulings on that one question!
Crazy. That and the reversed ruling seems terrible to me personally, but I digress.
Well, at least they each have the proper "last updated" date. So, if you do end up with both players have a different printout, one will at least be more current.
And, I agree. The old ruling, with better wording, makes more sense. Now, if I have a squad that was 5+ IC (6 total) that is down to 2+ IC (3 total), I'm below 50%!!!
Does the same logic apply to 25% casualties from shooting?
Yeah, actually it occurred to me that the new GW ruling is actually correct, since the concept of being below 'half strength' is typically determined by the 'starting strength' of the unit, which an IC wouldn't (or shouldn't) contribute to.
But as for the 25% casualties rule, that's pretty clear in the rulebook...it pertains to number of models lost in any phase, so you'd count how many models the unit had that phase and if 25% were lost then you'd qualify. That means ICs who are part of that unit for that phase would by definition be included.
9777
Post by: A-P
Grakmar wrote:yakface wrote:Y'know what else is interesting about that? The URL for the old FAQ is still working and both FAQs are labeled as v1.1, so two players could each have a print out of a v1.1 FAQ both with different rulings on that one question!
Crazy. That and the reversed ruling seems terrible to me personally, but I digress.
Well, at least they each have the proper "last updated" date. So, if you do end up with both players have a different printout, one will at least be more current.
What the feth  ? And here I was thinking GW had gotten things mostly right this time. Hint: do not make ninja edits. Do it right the first time or change the version number to avoid confusion.
32388
Post by: Dok
I'm all about this FAQ update. Anything to make the game run smoother with less checking for minutia in the rule book is awesome by me.
33891
Post by: Grakmar
A-P wrote:Grakmar wrote:
Well, at least they each have the proper "last updated" date. So, if you do end up with both players have a different printout, one will at least be more current.
What the feth ? And here I was thinking GW had gotten things mostly right this time. Hint: do not make ninja edits. Do it right the first time or change the version number to avoid confusion.
Agreed. We still run into problems with Necrons and the stealth reprint. There have been countless times people (myself included) quote a first printing Necron rule that was changed in the 2nd printing. It adds SO much confusion that could easily have been avoided.
28365
Post by: OverwatchCNC
MasterSlowPoke wrote:Heya. As we all know, the 40k Rulebook FAQ was updated to version 1.1 today. At the beginning of it is a new blurb:
Each update is split into three sections: Errata, Amendments, and ‘Frequently Asked Questions’. The Errata corrects any mistakes in the book, while the Amendments bring the book up to date with the latest version of the rules. The Frequently Asked Questions (or ‘FAQ’) section answers commonly asked questions about the rules. Although you can mark corrections directly in your army book, this is by no means necessary – just keep a copy of the update with your army book.
There is no mention of FAQ sections being merely "official house rules" - the FAQ answers are real answers. Can we rejoice and no longer have to worry about players springing the " FAQs aren't rules" answer, and all finally play the same game?
We have always used FAQa errata etc as hard rules. The "official house rules" non-sense was always ignored. People who didn't want to accept the FAQ as official were generally WAAC players who wanted to take advantage of rules loop holes to win. They either choose to play elsewhere or conform to the norm. It works out much better that way for everyone involved by providing a fun game rather than a tense argument that happens to involve dice and miniatures.
60
Post by: yakface
Grakmar wrote:
Agreed. We still run into problems with Necrons and the stealth reprint. There have been countless times people (myself included) quote a first printing Necron rule that was changed in the 2nd printing. It adds SO much confusion that could easily have been avoided.
It's a pet peeve of mine when people refer to the Necron update as a "stealth" update. At the time they printed the changes as cut-and-paste corrections in the chapter approved annual, and the revised rulings were also referenced in the FAQ of the day.
Could GW have done more (such as offering the corrections as a PDF)? Of course, but it most certainly wasn't a "stealth" update unlike some of the other 3rd edition codexes they legitimately changed without any notice.
33891
Post by: Grakmar
yakface wrote:Grakmar wrote:
Agreed. We still run into problems with Necrons and the stealth reprint. There have been countless times people (myself included) quote a first printing Necron rule that was changed in the 2nd printing. It adds SO much confusion that could easily have been avoided.
It's a pet peeve of mine when people refer to the Necron update as a "stealth" update. At the time they printed the changes as cut-and-paste corrections in the chapter approved annual, and the revised rulings were also referenced in the FAQ of the day.
Could GW have done more (such as offering the corrections as a PDF)? Of course, but it most certainly wasn't a "stealth" update unlike some of the other 3rd edition codexes they legitimately changed without any notice.
They should have done something with the cover to make it different. People identify which edition codex it is by what the cover is. By not changing the cover at all and just adding some small print on a page everyone skips over anyway saying "Second Printing" they left themselves open to players not realizing they have the outdated codex.
Even if they didn't want to take the time to come up with a whole new cover, the words "Second Printing" or "Updated" or "2.0" or something like that should have appeared right below the word "Necrons" on the front of the codex.
They did make people aware that the changes happened, but now that it's 8 years old, people have forgotten. It may not have been stealth at the time, but now, it isn't nearly as obvious.
Alternatively, they shouldn't have redone the codex at all and just left it as errata and FAQs.
35973
Post by: Gibbsey
Grakmar wrote:yakface wrote:Grakmar wrote:
Agreed. We still run into problems with Necrons and the stealth reprint. There have been countless times people (myself included) quote a first printing Necron rule that was changed in the 2nd printing. It adds SO much confusion that could easily have been avoided.
It's a pet peeve of mine when people refer to the Necron update as a "stealth" update. At the time they printed the changes as cut-and-paste corrections in the chapter approved annual, and the revised rulings were also referenced in the FAQ of the day.
Could GW have done more (such as offering the corrections as a PDF)? Of course, but it most certainly wasn't a "stealth" update unlike some of the other 3rd edition codexes they legitimately changed without any notice.
They should have done something with the cover to make it different. People identify which edition codex it is by what the cover is. By not changing the cover at all and just adding some small print on a page everyone skips over anyway saying "Second Printing" they left themselves open to players not realizing they have the outdated codex.
Even if they didn't want to take the time to come up with a whole new cover, the words "Second Printing" or "Updated" or "2.0" or something like that should have appeared right below the word "Necrons" on the front of the codex.
They did make people aware that the changes happened, but now that it's 8 years old, people have forgotten. It may not have been stealth at the time, but now, it isn't nearly as obvious.
Alternatively, they shouldn't have redone the codex at all and just left it as errata and FAQs.
or ya know they could of just redone the codex before people forgot about the update, almost a decade since last edition
24691
Post by: MasterDRD
Rymafyr wrote:BuFFo wrote:MasterDRD wrote:By that logic, the official rules in the rulebook don't matter either then, as long as someone else doesn't agree with them...
Ami doin it rite?
/sarcasm
They don't.
Read the first page in the introduction at the very top, under the Most Important Rule. No rule is set in stone. 40k is a fluid game where players are ENCOURAGED to invent their own rules to improve the narrative of the game. 40k has never been a 'set in stone' rules based tournament game, and it never will be. It will always be a relaxing hobby of painting toys and drinking beer over a friendly game on a rainy afternoon. The rules presented in any rule book are just guidelines for players to follow, which is clearly stated under the Most Important Rule.
And while this is a broad statement...I agree. This game breaks down into roughly two camps: The players that just want to have some fun and the players that want to be competitive. Honestly, you really can't be in both camps, at least simultaneously. However, since I have no real gaming club of my own, I very much like that GW has updated and officially recognize their errata and faq's. So yeah, I tend to have a lot of disgust for those competitive, tournament, rules-lawyering types as they suck the fun right out of the game for me but I respect that they themselves are having fun in that fashion. Really, make of the official FAQ what you want of it.
Well I may be opening a can of wurms here, (not a misspelling) but as a Warmachine player I see no reason why following the RULES OF THE GAME and playing in a friendly manner with the purpose of having fun must be mutually exclusive. If anything, as a Warmachine player I've noticed that when the inevitable rules disputes occur midgame, it is a godsend to have a clear, detailed explanation of the correct way to do things, rather than spend countless minutes arguing over such foolishness as the 'definition of special rules' and 'which faq is the right faq', and the infamous 'I say it works this way and if you dare disagree I will pack up and leave! *whinesniffmoan*'.
32598
Post by: BloodThirSTAR
It would be great if GW could print in White Dwarf or their website when a codex is reprinted. I remember the 4ed CSM codex had four printings and they kept going back and forth on Doom Siren. It was really confusing and you had to check which printing a CSM player was referring to make sure it was the most up to date.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
3rd ed codex....the current codex is the 4th ed one.
they also kept changing stats for the Obliterator, and the Glaive...
32598
Post by: BloodThirSTAR
It was considered to be one of the first true 4ed codices. There was a prior one written for 3ed.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
No, it really wasnt. The wrote one, bad, 3rd ed codex, and another one - hence it being called "3.5"
The CURRENT codex is considered the first 5th ed codex, as it introduced the concept of Defensive grenades, but the 3.5 codex was a 3rd ed book.
11856
Post by: Arschbombe
nosferatu1001 wrote:The CURRENT codex is considered the first 5th ed codex, as it introduced the concept of Defensive grenades, but the 3.5 codex was a 3rd ed book.
The current Codex CSM came out in 2007. Didn't Codex: Tau Empire have defensive grenades in 2006?
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Not that I am aware of - they have Photon Grenades, which are functionally equivalent, but CSM was the first to call them defensive grenades (Blight Grenades, specifically)
5182
Post by: SlaveToDorkness
I'm pretty sure you're thinking of the Chaos Daemons codex, Nos.
It states that models "count as armed with Defensive Grenades" when there was no definition for "Defensive Grenades".
752
Post by: Polonius
The first codex in the current style was actually Eldar, but it wasn't noticed that much because the eldar had always had a fairly limited armory. It wasn't until Dark Angels that people really noticed the changes. Of course, being a weaksauce niche book, it wasn't a major impact on the hobby.
The chaos book was the first book with the full range of modern style writing (unit profiles up front, army list in back, no armory, etc) however it (and DA) are the leanest of the 5th edition style codices in terms of options, while it replaced the most wide open book since 2nd edition. Since Chaos was a very popular army, everybody really noticed.
The first rulebook written that's completely compatible with 5th edition was Demons, which even included rules that didn't work in 4th edition. (assault grenades in particular) Orks were close, but there are some definite remnents of 4th in that book (namely the KFF making vehicles "obscured" instead of also giving them a 5+ cover save.)
8044
Post by: Arctik_Firangi
Dark Eldar players are going to LOVE this bit of RAW.
Q: Can a unit with the Fleet special rule assault after
disembarking from a transport? (p75)
A: No, it cannot. The Fleet rule simply removes the
prohibition of assaulting after running.
(I'm aware that open-topped vehicles are a clear exception but they could have worded it a little better for the lawyers. )
14863
Post by: MasterSlowPoke
That rule has been there forever and would be true even if that question wasn't there?
8044
Post by: Arctik_Firangi
I know. No unit can assault after disembarking from a vehicle. An exception is made on p.70 "The passengers of open-topped vehicles may assault, even if the vehicle has moved before their disembarkation."
As written, the 'Fleet' USR now disallows assaulting after disembarkation with no exceptions. Oops.
36211
Post by: Morans
See, this is why people like Gwar! ignore the GW FAQs, because they are written by people who don't know their own rules, can't spell and don't even proofread their stuff before releasing it.
Not to mention the shear number of moronic and "lets ignore the clear rules completely" answers.
Just look at YMTC. When an FAQ causes MORE QUESTIONS THAN IT ANSWERS, there needs to be a serious round of firings. Why GW don't just get Gwar! to write clear and concrete FAQs is beyond me.
28383
Post by: Mahtamori
I'm willing to take the latest FAQ in defence, it does answer more than it causes. It's just human to get upset over the parts that are flawed.
8044
Post by: Arctik_Firangi
GW don't write hard rules. AT ALL. No one needs to be fired - GW don't cater to competitive gamers and they have always made this perfectly clear.
To answer the OP, it says in the FAQ introduction on the website that they are soft rules.
33891
Post by: Grakmar
Arctik_Firangi wrote:GW don't write hard rules. AT ALL. No one needs to be fired - GW don't cater to competitive gamers and they have always made this perfectly clear.
To answer the OP, it says in the FAQ introduction on the website that they are soft rules.
+1
We often times overlook the fact that 40k is played hundreds (thousands?) of times a day, and everyone manages to get by just fine.
GW means for 40k to be a relaxed friendly game. That's why they have the rules "Have Fun", "Feel free to modify rules as you see fit", and "If in disagreement, roll-off"
Could they do a better job of clarifying gray areas? Definitely. Do they need to? Not really.
24691
Post by: MasterDRD
You know it's really irritating when people make excuses for GW's piss-poor rules writing because the rules aren't 'hard rules' and the game is a 'casual game'. That's such a pathetic argument. (And before you start, I thought the same exact thing a loooong time before I started Warmachine, so no I'm not being the 'snide WM player' here.)
Look at Chess, or hell even Checkers! They have clear, defined rules. Hundreds if not thousands of people play those 2 games every day, but does that make them 'competitive', 'tournament', 'hard' games? No.
If that's too simple for ya, try any board game ever. Try Monopoly. Risk. How about the trading card games, like Magic? Now that isn't to say that people don't houserule things even in the simplest of games. But the difference is that the KNOW and UNDERSTAND that they aren't following the rules. They don't try to claim that the game is a casual game and that the OFFICIAL RULES are 'open to interpretation'. If they change something or decide not to follow a rule, they know and accept the fact that in doing so, they are in fact breaking the rules.
9594
Post by: RiTides
I'm surprised how much debate (and... angst?) there is about the 40k FAQs.
For fantasy, everyone I've met has been very appreciative of how often the FAQs are being updated... it helps clear things up that players were interpreting for themselves, and they've done a great job of it so far since 8th edition.
/fantasy tie-tin
5873
Post by: kirsanth
It isn't just you MasterDRD. Some folks simply cannot fathom enjoying competition--especially when there are rules in it.
752
Post by: Polonius
I think you guys are discussing two different things.
The desire to have hard and fast for rules for competitive 40k is independent of the fact that 40k is a complex hobby game that is played according to local tastes.
Major League baseball is probably the most competitive game in the world, and one league has a major rule difference from the other. In the early days of the stanely cup, Western teams played with six skaters plus a goalie, and when they played in the east they would literally ue the house rules of the home team.
Competition thrives under consitent rules, but GT level 40k is still a part of the overall hobby, which is rooted in the idea of playing by house rules.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Polonius wrote:
Major League baseball is probably the most competitive game in the world
Football ("Soccer")?
99
Post by: insaniak
Morans wrote:Not to mention the shear number of moronic and "lets ignore the clear rules completely" answers.
A lot of those really come down to your perspective on the rules. A lot of those 'clear rules' that get 'ignored' are rules that cause a lot of debate because many players don't think they're actually all that clear, or because the way the rule inadvertently reads if you're looking for loopholes is not the way it was intended to work.
So GW, as a company making a beer-and-pretzels toy soldier shoot-em-up game, uses their FAQ to point out how it's 'supposed' to be played... and yes, sometimes that runs counter to what the rules appear to actually say.
When an FAQ causes MORE QUESTIONS THAN IT ANSWERS, there needs to be a serious round of firings.
And when that actually happens, there might well be.
24691
Post by: MasterDRD
Polonius wrote:I think you guys are discussing two different things.
The desire to have hard and fast for rules for competitive 40k is independent of the fact that 40k is a complex hobby game that is played according to local tastes.
Major League baseball is probably the most competitive game in the world, and one league has a major rule difference from the other. In the early days of the stanely cup, Western teams played with six skaters plus a goalie, and when they played in the east they would literally ue the house rules of the home team.
Competition thrives under consitent rules, but GT level 40k is still a part of the overall hobby, which is rooted in the idea of playing by house rules.
I've been involved in very few Monopoly games that didn't involve house rules, and I highly doubt that the creators intended that. The example of the baseball leagues is irrelevant, as according to my knowledge there isn't a single, central rulebook baseball. There is a single, universal rulebook for 40k. (the fact that said rulebook is frequently poorly written doesn't invalidate this, it just makes things frustrating.)
32598
Post by: BloodThirSTAR
A new or revised FAQ will always cause the rules to be questioned again. Thats just natural and consistent with human nature in general. We as players can either applaud GW for bringing some clarity to the game or condemn them for making things more mirky. For me the revised FAQ is a big step towards clarity. That is just me though and I dont expect everyone else to see it the same way. Complaining for the sake of complaining helps no one.
60
Post by: yakface
I think the discussion being had here is the EXACT REASON that GW has that blurb about their FAQs not being 'hard' rules. Because people can't seem to grasp that a FAQ (in any situation) are *not* rules, but answers to questions about the rules.
You cannot divorce the answer from the question and you cannot divorce either of those from the rules text itself and the reason for the question in the first place.
So in the case of the Fleet vs. disembarking ruling it does not mean that units that disembark from an open-topped transport can no longer assault because the answer IS NOT RULES. It is an answer to a question about whether or not the act of running (and having the fleet special rule) means a unit can disregard the normal restriction against assaulting after disembarking.
Since open-topped vehicles do not have any such restriction against assaulting, the FAQ question and answer cannot possibly relate to it.
But because people want to try to treat FAQ questions/answers like they are 'RULES' (when they aren't) we get this pointless kind of discussion everytime a new FAQ is released.
36211
Post by: Morans
The problem is exactly that.
GW need to actually become a responsible business and support it's games properly with proper errata, not some wishy washy FAQs that ignore what the rules actually say (and quite clearly say) and also ignore what the community does.
They say that Monoliths can never arrive from reserves normally for crying out loud. If that doesn't set off your "this ship is captained by monkeys" alarm, nothing will.
21789
Post by: calypso2ts
As YakFace said, the FAQ is there to clarify misconceptions that may occur from the rule set. Errata are there to fill holes in the rules or make new ones.
The FAQ provides a context within which to interpret the rules, but you cannot necessarily take these answers and use them to draw conclusions about a situation that is completely different.
99
Post by: insaniak
Morans wrote:They say that Monoliths can never arrive from reserves normally for crying out loud.
Monoliths can move on from Reserves just fine, as they are a fraction under 6 inches across.
8044
Post by: Arctik_Firangi
MasterDRD wrote:You know it's really irritating when people make excuses for GW's piss-poor rules writing because the rules aren't 'hard rules' and the game is a 'casual game'. That's such a pathetic argument. (And before you start, I thought the same exact thing a loooong time before I started Warmachine, so no I'm not being the 'snide WM player' here.)
Look at Chess, or hell even Checkers! They have clear, defined rules. Hundreds if not thousands of people play those 2 games every day, but does that make them 'competitive', 'tournament', 'hard' games? No.
If that's too simple for ya, try any board game ever. Try Monopoly. Risk. How about the trading card games, like Magic? Now that isn't to say that people don't houserule things even in the simplest of games. But the difference is that the KNOW and UNDERSTAND that they aren't following the rules. They don't try to claim that the game is a casual game and that the OFFICIAL RULES are 'open to interpretation'. If they change something or decide not to follow a rule, they know and accept the fact that in doing so, they are in fact breaking the rules.
Who cares? You're expecting too much in my opinion. Warhammer and 40K are not competitive games, but some people play them competitively. Competitive players need to decide on some of the unclear rules beforehand or there will be problems, but they sure as hell aren't GW's problems. They are simply 'games' and you may play them as you see fit.
The MOST IMPORTANT RULE - as defined by the 40K rulebook - is that the rules aren't that important. The suggested solution to issues in-game is a roll-off. I suggest that if you have serious real-life issues with a deliberately casual ruleset you ought to seek immediate counselling.
I'm a competitive gamer and I can deal with it, so why can't you?
24691
Post by: MasterDRD
Arctik_Firangi wrote:Who cares? You're expecting too much in my opinion. Warhammer and 40K are not competitive games, but some people play them competitively. Competitive players need to decide on some of the unclear rules beforehand or there will be problems, but they sure as hell aren't GW's problems. They are simply 'games' and you may play them as you see fit.
The MOST IMPORTANT RULE - as defined by the 40K rulebook - is that the rules aren't that important. The suggested solution to issues in-game is a roll-off. I suggest that if you have serious real-life issues with a deliberately casual ruleset you ought to seek immediate counselling.
I'm a competitive gamer and I can deal with it, so why can't you?
'Subtle' personal attacks aside, the bolded section above is the real problem with 40K (and some 40K players). Who the feth writes a rulebook for a game, and then says "oh but the rules don't really matter, just do whatever you want"? That just reeks of terrible design.
Case in point: (as if anyone needs to be reminded how poorly 40K rules are generally written )
I've recently started playing some 40k again, and every single game I've played or watched there have been several rules disputes, many of which dragged on until one or the other person got tired of arguing and just let the other person have their way. It's been rather annoying actually, and overall it takes away from the enjoyment of the game by quite a bit. Compare to my last 4 months of playing Warmachine, where what few rules disputes there have been were quickly and efficiently resolved by consulting the rulebook; this resulted in less time wasted and more fun had by all involved. The Warmachine rulebook is well written and it shows; the 40K rulebook and codexes are poorly worded, and it's glaringly obvious.
12620
Post by: Che-Vito
8044
Post by: Arctik_Firangi
Warmachine encourages hard lists and competitive play. Different people have fun in different ways. Warhammer is a fun, casual hobby with a wide and varied background that caters to much more than the tiny percentage of WAAC players who can't complete a game without a raging argument because they care so very much about something as simple as an unclear rule. I'm not trying to be an apologist but these are two very different systems. It's pretty clear that Warmachine is better suited to you. My games of Warhamer ( 40K at least) very rarely involve rules confusion and I've never been involved in a heated argument about it... It doesn't happen in 'every single game' unless both players have a less-than-clear understanding of the rules. WHFB players are generally a different lot so I don't often play it competitively... but that's a nasty stereotype so I won't say any more on that! The text you have highlighted defeats your point when you revert to my previous statement. GW don't write 'hard rules'. It's not that the rules are unimportant. It's that enjoying the hobby and a good game with a fellow player is of far greater significance.
24691
Post by: MasterDRD
Che-Vito wrote:MasterDRD wrote:Arctik_Firangi wrote:Who cares? You're expecting too much in my opinion. Warhammer and 40K are not competitive games, but some people play them competitively. Competitive players need to decide on some of the unclear rules beforehand or there will be problems, but they sure as hell aren't GW's problems. They are simply 'games' and you may play them as you see fit.
The MOST IMPORTANT RULE - as defined by the 40K rulebook - is that the rules aren't that important. The suggested solution to issues in-game is a roll-off. I suggest that if you have serious real-life issues with a deliberately casual ruleset you ought to seek immediate counselling.
I'm a competitive gamer and I can deal with it, so why can't you?
'Subtle' personal attacks aside, the bolded section above is the real problem with 40K (and some 40K players). Who the feth writes a rulebook for a game, and then says "oh but the rules don't really matter, just do whatever you want"? That just reeks of terrible design.
Case in point: (as if anyone needs to be reminded how poorly 40K rules are generally written )
I've recently started playing some 40k again, and every single game I've played or watched there have been several rules disputes, many of which dragged on until one or the other person got tired of arguing and just let the other person have their way. It's been rather annoying actually, and overall it takes away from the enjoyment of the game by quite a bit. Compare to my last 4 months of playing Warmachine, where what few rules disputes there have been were quickly and efficiently resolved by consulting the rulebook; this resulted in less time wasted and more fun had by all involved. The Warmachine rulebook is well written and it shows; the 40K rulebook and codexes are poorly worded, and it's glaringly obvious.
sooooo....why are you bothering with 40k then?
Because not all my friends play the superior game yet.
|
|
