GW posted some FAQ updates in January,

40K

main Book: http://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/Errata/Warhammer_40000/Warhammer_40000_Rules_EN.pdf

Dark Eldar: http://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/Errata/Warhammer_40000/Dark_Eldar_EN.pdf

Orks: http://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/Errata/Warhammer_40000/Orks_EN.pdf

Space Wolves: http://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/Errata/Warhammer_40000/Space_Wolves_EN.pdf

Fantasy

Daemons: http://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/Errata/Warhammer/Daemons_of_Chaos_EN.pdf



I don't see anything really noteworthy, but if you play take a look? (or not, your choice after all)

These FAQ's are so random! Why would they even bother answering that question about Tank Hunter and Rending when there are so many other pressing questions? It's so strange.

Yay for more loose wording! In trying to fix the 'issue' of immobilised skimmers Jinking, they just said that immobilised vehicles can jink...


And they've just put another nail in Captain Shrike's ability to infiltrate with a unit...




So much stuff that needs fixing, and this is the best they could do.

A shame they didn't change the DE Archon's wargear options from Power Sword to Power Weapon and add Ghostplate armour back to his options too..

They finally fixed Immobilized skimmers and Jink...

wow.

Awesome. nearly 8 months overdue, but great to see finally done.


That said, some of the other things seem insanely niche, and there's a huge ton of things they still need to get to and it's difficult to see how they haven't yet.

fixing the issue with rending + tank hunter matters.... lots of punisher pask builds out there probably crying... myself included.


the change ot cyber wolf toughness is good,

the clarification on infiltrate and jink while immobile is nice, but is a testament to how much our community will "game the rules" that those clarifications were even needed in the first place.

I don't think that's fair.

While I'll agree that being immobilised disallowing jink feels intuitive, if the rules weren't clear, then where does one draw the line?

FMCs can jink when they're apparently not airborne, bikes can jink even if they didn't move, why, then, is it not feasible that a skimmer unable to make lateral progress across the field can't do something like employ countermeasures or small thrusters or altitude adjustments to try and mitigate incoming fire?

There are some discussions in YMDC that should be taken outside and shot, but I don't feel this was one of them.

 Azreal13 wrote:
I don't think that's fair.

While I'll agree that being immobilised disallowing jink feels intuitive, if the rules weren't clear, then where does one draw the line?

FMCs can jink when they're apparently not airborne, bikes can jink even if they didn't move, why, then, is it not feasible that a skimmer unable to make lateral progress across the field can't do something like employ countermeasures or small thrusters or altitude adjustments to try and mitigate incoming fire?

There are some discussions in YMDC that should be taken outside and shot, but I don't feel this was one of them.

I'm of the opinion that none of those units should be able to Jink if they're not in appropriate motion (e.g. FMC's should have to be Swooping, bikes have to at least be moving).

That said, given that in every previous edition there was an explicit point about Skimmers and Immobilization, this feels more like fixing something that got left out due to a brainfart/error rather than retroactively punishing Skimmers. It's also the only instance where the unit is literally incapable of any theoretical movement, unlike the other instances where one could argue jinking in place.

The fix to Jink not working when immobilized could be worded better, but it still gets the point across. No more Jinking while immobilized is a big and overdue change.

Still no meaningful FAQs for Wood Elves.

Shame.

Vaktathi wrote:They finally fixed Immobilized skimmers and Jink...

No, they didn't.

Again, that FAQ actually says that immobilised skimmers can Jink...

easysauce wrote:the clarification on infiltrate and jink while immobile is nice, but is a testament to how much our community will "game the rules" that those clarifications were even needed in the first place.

Yeah, it's totally the fault of the players that GW write incomplete rules, and then wait a year or more before giving any indication that the rules they wrote aren't what they actually meant to write.

Dem two blank pages in the Ork FAQ, lol. What happened there I wonder?

 Jambles wrote:
Dem two blank pages in the Ork FAQ, lol. What happened there I wonder?

If you print those pages on a laser printer and then rub lemon juice on them, you get the rules for Wazdakka and Old Zogwort.

 insaniak wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:They finally fixed Immobilized skimmers and Jink...

No, they didn't.

Again, that FAQ actually says that immobilised skimmers can Jink...

Your going to have to break down how you came to that conclusion my friend.

What they said is:
"Skimmers that are not also Heavy vehicles or are immobilised have the Jink special rule."

Which actually gives the Jink rule to immobilised vehicles... If the vehicle is not Heavy, or the vehicle is immobilised, it has the Jink rule.

What it should have said is:
"Skimmers that are not also Heavy vehicles or immobilised have the Jink special rule."

Yeah its clear what they intended - but its bad grammar on their part.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Jambles wrote:
Dem two blank pages in the Ork FAQ, lol. What happened there I wonder?

If you print those pages on a laser printer and then rub lemon juice on them, you get the rules for Wazdakka and Old Zogwort.

Stand by the grey stone when the thrush knocks and the setting sun with the last light of Durin's Day will shine upon the key-hole and there shall be revealed the answers for the foe of the Naugrim.

 insaniak wrote:
What they said is:
"Skimmers that are not also Heavy vehicles or are immobilised have the Jink special rule."

Which actually gives the Jink rule to immobilised vehicles... If the vehicle is not Heavy, or the vehicle is immobilised, it has the Jink rule.

What it should have said is:
"Skimmers that are not also Heavy vehicles or immobilised have the Jink special rule."

I mean call me stupid but my understanding of the in and out of written english (which isn't that amazing) I see zero significant difference between what they wrote and what you wrote.

Is the skimmer heavy or are immobilized (cumbersome to say yes) no then it has jink. Possible "or is" would of been prettier but still I understand what they wrote clearly.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I mean call me stupid but my understanding of the in and out of written english (which isn't that amazing) I see zero significant difference between what they wrote and what you wrote.

Is the skimmer heavy or are immobilized (cumbersome to say yes) no then it has jink. Possible "or is" would of been prettier but still I understand what they wrote clearly.

'Or is' would have been grammatically worse, but had the same outcome as 'or are'... That second 'are' is the problem, as it separates the second statement from the original 'are not'.

"You can have a cookie if you are not naughty or naked" allows you to apply that original 'are not' to both states. If you are not naughty, you get a cookie. If you are not naked, you get a cookie.

If I instead say "You can have a cookie if you are not naughty or are naked" then I've completely changed the requirements. Now, it reads: If you are not naughty you get a cookie. If you are naked, you get a cookie.

If (Skimmer != Heavy OR Skimmer = Immobilized) then Jink.

So now we know that only immobilised flyers can jink, and that insaniak has very specific cookie distribution requirements.

 insaniak wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I mean call me stupid but my understanding of the in and out of written english (which isn't that amazing) I see zero significant difference between what they wrote and what you wrote.

Is the skimmer heavy or are immobilized (cumbersome to say yes) no then it has jink. Possible "or is" would of been prettier but still I understand what they wrote clearly.

'Or is' would have been grammatically worse, but had the same outcome as 'or are'... That second 'are' is the problem, as it separates the second statement from the original 'are not'.

"You can have a cookie if you are not naughty or naked" allows you to apply that original 'are not' to both states. If you are not naughty, you get a cookie. If you are not naked, you get a cookie.

If I instead say "You can have a cookie if you are not naughty or are naked" then I've completely changed the requirements. Now, it reads: If you are not naughty you get a cookie. If you are naked, you get a cookie.

They can't even write the FAQ properly.

 insaniak wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I mean call me stupid but my understanding of the in and out of written english (which isn't that amazing) I see zero significant difference between what they wrote and what you wrote.

Is the skimmer heavy or are immobilized (cumbersome to say yes) no then it has jink. Possible "or is" would of been prettier but still I understand what they wrote clearly.

'Or is' would have been grammatically worse, but had the same outcome as 'or are'... That second 'are' is the problem, as it separates the second statement from the original 'are not'.

"You can have a cookie if you are not naughty or naked" allows you to apply that original 'are not' to both states. If you are not naughty, you get a cookie. If you are not naked, you get a cookie.

If I instead say "You can have a cookie if you are not naughty or are naked" then I've completely changed the requirements. Now, it reads: If you are not naughty you get a cookie. If you are naked, you get a cookie.

I figure it was a grammar thing lol. As many of us do not have that level of understanding of grammar it says exactly what it was intended to say. For you it says something to the opposite.

Which means that GW might want to have better editors checking things or not have joe shmoe writing rules. As naturally rules will get picked apart and dissected.

 insaniak wrote:

 Jambles wrote:
Dem two blank pages in the Ork FAQ, lol. What happened there I wonder?

If you print those pages on a laser printer and then rub lemon juice on them, you get the rules for Wazdakka and Old Zogwort.

These two pages are to answer the FAQ: "How are you suppose to be competitive with orks?"

 plastictrees wrote:
So now we know that only immobilised flyers can jink, and that insaniak has very specific cookie distribution requirements.

I think I'll just have a muffin.

 insaniak wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:They finally fixed Immobilized skimmers and Jink...

No, they didn't.

Again, that FAQ actually says that immobilised skimmers can Jink...

easysauce wrote:the clarification on infiltrate and jink while immobile is nice, but is a testament to how much our community will "game the rules" that those clarifications were even needed in the first place.

Yeah, it's totally the fault of the players that GW write incomplete rules, and then wait a year or more before giving any indication that the rules they wrote aren't what they actually meant to write.

well when you make incorrect statements like claiming the new FAQ that specifically disallows immobile skimmers to jink, actually allows them to jink, yes that is on you. the faq is quite clear, immobile skimmers cannot jink.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
What they said is:
"Skimmers that are not also Heavy vehicles or are immobilised have the Jink special rule."

Which actually gives the Jink rule to immobilised vehicles... If the vehicle is not Heavy, or the vehicle is immobilised, it has the Jink rule.

What it should have said is:
"Skimmers that are not also Heavy vehicles or immobilised have the Jink special rule."

I mean call me stupid but my understanding of the in and out of written english (which isn't that amazing) I see zero significant difference between what they wrote and what you wrote.

Is the skimmer heavy or are immobilized (cumbersome to say yes) no then it has jink. Possible "or is" would of been prettier but still I understand what they wrote clearly.

there is no difference, that's a perfect example of the players not knowing how to read the rules, which is why GW has to do most FAQ's unfortunately.


Getting a cookie if I am "not naked or ugly" and "not naked or are ugly" both mean the same thing, you can use the improper English that insaniak is using to claim BOTH sentences mean different things,

but factually they both mean "you cant have a cookie if you are ugly" adding "are" into there doesnt change a positive to a negative, nor does it remove the context from the previous words in the sentence.

you have been told you cannot do ___________ if you are X or are Y

the ARE does nothing to change the meaning if you read the entire sentence properly.

Sooo Discounted FNP wounds still kill Shadowfield?

Surprised by that :/

 easysauce wrote:
well when you make incorrect statements like claiming the new FAQ that specifically disallows immobile skimmers to jink, actually allows them to jink, yes that is on you. the faq is quite clear, immobile skimmers cannot jink.

insaniak's statement is correct, as can be seen if you actually look at the sentence in question:

Skimmers that are not also Heavy vehicles or are immobilized have the Jink special rule.

Remove the yellow section and the 'or' and it becomes even clearer.

 easysauce wrote:
... adding "are" into there doesnt change a positive to a negative,.

No, it changes a negative to a positive.

'Are' and 'are not' do not mean the same thing.

You would think the British would have a better understanding of the English language...

I can see how it is unclear, but the intent is pretty obvious.

the problem is English is a rich and ever changing language,

words and punctuation change an often there are decades or even centuries where you can pick different versions both of which are technically correct (often common usage romps ahead of what some consider proper, sometimes things drift one way and then another)

embrace the chaos

 Ghaz wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
well when you make incorrect statements like claiming the new FAQ that specifically disallows immobile skimmers to jink, actually allows them to jink, yes that is on you. the faq is quite clear, immobile skimmers cannot jink.

insaniak's statement is correct, as can be seen if you actually look at the sentence in question:

Skimmers that are not also Heavy vehicles or are immobilized have the Jink special rule.

Remove the yellow section and the 'or' and it becomes even clearer.

no again, you are using improper grammar and ignoring the proper sentence structure.


It reads like this, not as you indicate above.

Skimmers that are not also Heavy vehicles or are immobilized have the Jink special rule.

you cannot just group the "ARE NOT" bit only with the reference to tanks and not apply it to skimmers as it applies to the whole sentence which includes skimmers.
The yellow bit I made above applies to the whole sentence, not just to the parts you say it does.

Hence the correct reading of this is:
Skimmers that are not also Heavy vehicles have the Jink special rule.
or

Skimmers that are not also immobilized have the Jink special rule.


you and insaniak are incorrectly cutting out the main context of the sentence, and applying it to half the sentence and not the other. Easy mistake to make, but your mistake none the less.

Sorry, but my grammar is just fine. Yours would require the second section to say "... skimmers that are not also are immobilized have the Jink special rule..." Now does that make sense without leaving out a word like you're doing?

 insaniak wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
... adding "are" into there doesnt change a positive to a negative,.

No, it changes a negative to a positive.

'Are' and 'are not' do not mean the same thing.

notice the word NOT is what changed it... not the word are....

fact is, you are cutting the sentence apart wrongly.

as I indicated above, the proper way to break down the sentence is not as you claim it to be.

 easysauce wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
... adding "are" into there doesnt change a positive to a negative,.

No, it changes a negative to a positive.

'Are' and 'are not' do not mean the same thing.

notice the word NOT is what changed it... not the word are....

fact is, you are cutting the sentence apart wrongly.

as I indicated above, the proper way to break down the sentence is not as you claim it to be.

Easysauce, you're wrong in this instance due to the second instance of the word "are". Recheck your primary books about sentences involving two different subject-verb agreements in a single sentence.

 easysauce wrote:
you cannot just group the "ARE NOT" bit only with the reference to tanks and not apply it to skimmers as it applies to the whole sentence which includes skimmers.

Nope. The 'are not' would apply to both sides of the 'or' without that second 'are'...

The statement 'You can have a cookie if you are not naked or ugly' can also be written as 'You can have a cookie if you are not naked or are not ugly'. In that situation, though, there's no particular need to actually write the second 'are not'... since there is no alternative qualifier after the 'or' the original one still applies. But that's not what the rule says. What the rule says is 'You can have a cookie if you are not naked or are ugly.'

What you're trying to argue is that 'You can have a cookie if you are not naked or are not ugly' is the same statement as 'You can have a cookie if you are not naked or are ugly'.

Which brings us back to the fact that 'are' and 'are not' do not mean the same thing.

Skimmers that are not Heavy vehicles, or are immobilized, have the Jink special rule.

Fixed.
That'll be £40 please GW.

Uh, no... That doesn't fix it.

 Flood wrote:

Skimmers that are not Heavy vehicles, or are not immobilized, have the Jink special rule.

Fixed.
That'll be £40 please GW.

"Skimmers have the Jink Special Rule, unless they are Heavy or Immobilised."

Now I'll take that money please.

 GoonBandito wrote:

 Flood wrote:

Skimmers that are not Heavy vehicles, or are not immobilized, have the Jink special rule.

Fixed.
That'll be £40 please GW.

"Skimmers have the Jink Special Rule, unless they are Heavy or Immobilised."

Now I'll take that money please.

*sucks in air*

I'd agree with that if the errata had said "or are not immobilised", but it doesn't say that. I'm stepping away from this table now, I can't take the tension.

the wording is so bizarre; in the BRB update about skimmers it says
"skimmers that are not also heavy vehicles or are immobilized have the jink special rule"

seriously, how was that supposed to 'clear things up'?!
i get that a statement to the effect that:
'immobilized skimmers or skimmers which are also heavy vehicles dont have jink'
was needed, but doesnt that little summation sound a bit better?

GW need a proof-reader!

ah, just noticed ive been beaten to the joke by several thousand others. dang.

"An Independent Character without the Infiltrate special rule cannot join a unit of Infiltrators during deployment, and vice versa"

Well, goodbye forever, Huron..

A skimmer loses the Jink rule if it is a heavy vehicle and/or is immobilized. Boo yah.

The fact we're on page 2 shows how unclear it is. We *know* what they mean, but I'm sure we always did. The problem is that we're paying a fortune for this stuff, it should at least be clear.

I really pity anyone trying to understand it when English isn't their native language (like Glaswegians or Spaniards)

Simple fact is that line can be read 2 different ways in English and be grammatically correct, in other words it's exactly the type of sentence you do not write in a rulebook/FAQ.

FAQ of a FAQ required !!!!

MaxT wrote:
Simple fact is that line can be read 2 different ways in English and be grammatically correct, in other words it's exactly the type of sentence you do not write in a rulebook/FAQ.

FAQ of a FAQ required !!!!

Or simply choose not to play against a rules lawyer.

It's got nothing to do with rules laywering or anything when a person plays, it's just a gak product. I'd not be happy with a novel that's full of spelling mistakes, and i'm not happy with a ruleset full of ambiguous wording.

And it's not like it's a difficult rule to write either !

The German version of the FAQ is pretty clear on "no jink for immobilized".
It also forbids characters without the Infiltrate special rule to join a unit during deployment with the Infiltrate special rule (not just inflitrating units).

 Hanskrampf wrote:

It also forbids characters without the Infiltrate special rule to join a unit during deployment with the Infiltrate special rule (not just inflitrating units).

Units with the infiltrate rule are the same thing as infiltrating units... You don't have an option to not infiltrate.

So heavy skimmers can only jink if they're immobilized? Glad they finally sorted that out.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I mean call me stupid but my understanding of the in and out of written english (which isn't that amazing) I see zero significant difference between what they wrote and what you wrote.

Is the skimmer heavy or are immobilized (cumbersome to say yes) no then it has jink. Possible "or is" would of been prettier but still I understand what they wrote clearly.

'Or is' would have been grammatically worse, but had the same outcome as 'or are'... That second 'are' is the problem, as it separates the second statement from the original 'are not'.

"You can have a cookie if you are not naughty or naked" allows you to apply that original 'are not' to both states. If you are not naughty, you get a cookie. If you are not naked, you get a cookie.

If I instead say "You can have a cookie if you are not naughty or are naked" then I've completely changed the requirements. Now, it reads: If you are not naughty you get a cookie. If you are naked, you get a cookie.

I figure it was a grammar thing lol. As many of us do not have that level of understanding of grammar it says exactly what it was intended to say. For you it says something to the opposite.

Which means that GW might want to have better editors checking things or not have joe shmoe writing rules. As naturally rules will get picked apart and dissected.

Alternatively, easysauce has it spot-on and players could stop digging up obscure grammar rules that 99% of people don't know or care about in order to justify counter-intuitive nonsense for ingame advantage. But hey, who needs sportsmanship when you've got grammatical pedantry?

 Yodhrin wrote:


Alternatively, easysauce has it spot-on and players could stop digging up obscure grammar rules that 99% of people don't know or care about in order to justify counter-intuitive nonsense for ingame advantage. But hey, who needs sportsmanship when you've got grammatical pedantry?

What on earth are you talking about?

Nobody is trying to gain any sort of advantage, just pointing out that the rule is badly written.

And this is quite basic grammar. It's not 'obscure' in the slightest.

This IS basic grammar. The only reason some people interpret it the wrong way (which happens to be the intended way) is because they knew the intention before reading the sentence and didn't register the error. It doesn't make the sentence any more grammatically correct.

 insaniak wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:


Alternatively, easysauce has it spot-on and players could stop digging up obscure grammar rules that 99% of people don't know or care about in order to justify counter-intuitive nonsense for ingame advantage. But hey, who needs sportsmanship when you've got grammatical pedantry?

What on earth are you talking about?

Nobody is trying to gain any sort of advantage, just pointing out that the rule is badly written.

And this is quite basic grammar. It's not 'obscure' in the slightest.

You're already outnumbered just here in this thread by people essentially saying "they both look the same to me", I'd make a pretty hefty wager that if you asked any random sample of a country's English-speaking populace the difference in meaning you'd get the same answer. It's obscure, because English as a language is so full of this kind of needless pedantry, most of it counter-intuitive into the bargain, that normal people are capable of looking at a sentence and grasping the basic meaning; people learn this stuff in school and then promptly forget it all so they can function without tying themselves in knots over the construction of sentences. I know for a fact I overuse and sometimes likely misuse commas, for example, because it makes sense to me to use a comma to indicate the pause that would be there if I were speaking aloud, but somehow, against all odds, the vast majority of people manage to grasp my meaning even when my misuse of a comma might, in an extremely technical and pedantic analysis of my writing, be said to have changed the meaning of my words according to some obscure grammatical rule.

I'm a pretty vocal critic of GW, but even I'm not going to stoop to giving them hassle over this kind of minutiae, ascribing malice or incompetence in place of what is almost certainly just normal people writing normally, rather than in strict and unwavering accordance with the byzantine nonsense that is English grammar.

Finally, in what universe is arguing an interpretation of a rule which allows a model to take an armour save in a situation they wouldn't gain one by other interpretations not arguing for an ingame advantage? And if you do grasp the pretty evident meaning that immobilised skimmers don't get Jink and wouldn't try to argue otherwise yourself when playing the game, has it occurred to you that if yourself and everyone else who grasps the meaning but find the sentence construction personally offensive would simply choke back your annoyance at the sight of us plebs committing the heinous crime of making ourselves reasonably clear to each other without needing to abase ourselves at the feet of English majors, most of the annoying "debates" about rules that end up sounding more like a defense lawyer trying to obtain an acquittal for an obviously guilty client would likely mostly go away? Grammar is not serious enough an issue to be casting these kinds of arguments up on the principle of the thing.

Why are some of you fighting over grammar? The FAQ is fine and answers the question. [MOD EDIT - Language, please! - Alpharius] you boys need to calm down!

As Plataunth and insaniak pointed out, this is most certainly a subject-verb agreement error. It's not some obscure English rules, it's high school-grade English literacy. An easy mistake to make perhaps, but I'm surprised someone at GW didn't have some else check his clauses since this was certainly something they wanted to be clear about.

Are people going to rule-lawyer others to death about it? Probably not, but dismissing it as some sort of ye olde English interpretation is showing pre-determined bias over what you think the FAQ should have read as and not admitting that whoever wrote this flubbed up and should have been more careful-it kind of defeats the whole purpose of a FAQ.

The bottom line is this: 99.9% of the people that will read that rule understand what they mean. Full stop.

So stop over analyzing it and get on with it. JFC, it's stupid crap like this that completely turns me off to even want to continue to play the game. Great, you spotted the grammatical error...you're a hero. Do you still understand what they meant? Yes? Then shut up about it and move on.

 Yodhrin wrote:


You're already outnumbered just here in this thread by people essentially saying "they both look the same to me", I'd make a pretty hefty wager that if you asked any random sample of a country's English-speaking populace the difference in meaning you'd get the same answer. It's obscure, because English as a language is so full of this kind of needless pedantry, most of it counter-intuitive into the bargain, that normal people are capable of looking at a sentence and grasping the basic meaning; people learn this stuff in school and then promptly forget it all so they can function without tying themselves in knots over the construction of sentences.

Maybe, but what if you asked a non-native English speaker? There's a lot more out them out there than us, and these grammar quirks are much harder to parse. It's more significant now that they aren't producing stuff in as many languages as they used to.

Herzlos wrote:
The fact we're on page 2 shows how unclear it is. We *know* what they mean, but I'm sure we always did. The problem is that we're paying a fortune for this stuff, it should at least be clear.

I really pity anyone trying to understand it when English isn't their native language (like Glaswegians or Spaniards)

Dinny ken like.

 Yodhrin wrote:
[... but somehow, against all odds, the vast majority of people manage to grasp my meaning even when my misuse of a comma might, in an extremely technical and pedantic analysis of my writing, be said to have changed the meaning of my words according to some obscure grammatical rule.

It seems likely from reading this that a large part of the disconnect here is from you and I having very different ideas of what constitutes an obscure grammatical rule.

For what it's worth, I didn't read this FAQ and then bust out a dozen English texts to see if I could find anything that wasn't quite right. I read the entry in question. It was obviously wrong.

I'm a pretty vocal critic of GW, but even I'm not going to stoop to giving them hassle over this kind of minutiae, ascribing malice or incompetence in place of what is almost certainly just normal people writing normally, rather than in strict and unwavering accordance with the byzantine nonsense that is English grammar.

When you're talking about a piece of rules text, having that text wind up saying the exact opposite of what you wanted it to say is hardly 'minutiae', surely.

Finally, in what universe is arguing an interpretation of a rule which allows a model to take an armour save in a situation they wouldn't gain one by other interpretations not arguing for an ingame advantage?

The universe where people are pointing it out as merely a piece of bad writing and not actually suggesting that it be played that way?

And if you do grasp the pretty evident meaning that immobilised skimmers don't get Jink....

I don't.

What I grasp is that what they wrote is the complete opposite of what they meant. The pretty evident meaning of that piece of text is not what it was pretty evidently supposed to be.

Grammar is not serious enough an issue to be casting these kinds of arguments up on the principle of the thing.

And yet here we are, with you posting walls of text to refute the idea that a piece of a rule might be badly written (when it is), rather than just saying 'Huh, look at that...' and moving on.


But frankly, I would argue that when you're talking about a ruleset that relies on the written word, grammar is absolutely a serious enough issue to be having these kinds of arguments.

If your options are:
1- Write a piece of text that doesn't mean what you wanted it to mean, and assume that people will figure out what you intended
or
2- Change one word and have the text mean what it was supposed to mean
...then surely number 2 is a better option, no?

Leave it to GW to use more words then needed.

"Heavy vehicles and immobilized skimmers cannot jink."

Done.

Why they always have to be overly wordy is beyond me.

 Red Corsair wrote:
Leave it to GW to use more words then needed.

"Heavy vehicles and immobilized skimmers cannot jink."

Done.

Why they always have to be overly wordy is beyond me.

That leaves out the bit where skimmers are given Jink in the first place...

Yes, their wording may have cause other problems as well

 insaniak wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
Leave it to GW to use more words then needed.

"Heavy vehicles and immobilized skimmers cannot jink."

Done.

Why they always have to be overly wordy is beyond me.

That leaves out the bit where skimmers are given Jink in the first place...

Isn't that given in the core rules? These are FAQ's not errata.

The entry under discussion is errata to the rule that gives skimmers Jink.

 Ghaz wrote:
Yes, their wording may have cause other problems as well

Your assuming intent on that one IMHO. makes sense not to have to snapfire once your stopped.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
The entry under discussion is errata to the rule that gives skimmers Jink.

Ah sorry, well then add a second line.

"Skimmers have the rule jink.

Heavy vehicles and immobile skimmers no longer have the rule jink."

At any rate I assume you were ribbing me by being overly pedantic You get my meaning

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Yes, their wording may have cause other problems as well

Your assuming intent on that one IMHO. makes sense not to have to snapfire once your stopped.

I'm not assuming any intent as you would notice by my use of 'may have'. With such a poorly worded FAQ that this has turned out to be, it would be a mistake to make an assumption either way.

Lol geedubs.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Yes, their wording may have cause other problems as well

Your assuming intent on that one IMHO. makes sense not to have to snapfire once your stopped.

I'm not assuming any intent as you would notice by my use of 'may have'. With such a poorly worded FAQ that this has turned out to be, it would be a mistake to make an assumption either way.

Fair enough, and I am not addressing this at you, but I think this is definitely a case where people some people are being overly pedantic on the internet. Makes sense in YMDC, not so much in news and rumors. I am glad you did it with a link however rather then drag it out in here.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Yes, their wording may have cause other problems as well

Your assuming intent on that one IMHO. makes sense not to have to snapfire once your stopped.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
The entry under discussion is errata to the rule that gives skimmers Jink.

Ah sorry, well then add a second line.

"Skimmers have the rule jink.

Heavy vehicles and immobile skimmers no longer have the rule jink."

At any rate I assume you were ribbing me by being overly pedantic You get my meaning

Or they could simply stop insisting on wording their erratas as replacing sentences. Just refer to a specific section and simply state "btw, bros, immobilized skimmers lose the jink special rule."

As for the wording, there's a world of difference between a native speaker and someone who has learned English through formal education. I immediately read it as "immobilized skimmers do get jink" because, you know, that's what it actually says.

"Units with the skimmer type possess the jink special rule.

Units with the skimmer type that are immobilized lose the jink special rule."

Out of curiosity, I can't download the FAQs at the moment but judging from the past 3 pages I just read, is there only a single question answered in the entire series of documents? Just checking as the smell of this dead horse is pretty strong if you enter the virtual room...

As is usual, there are questions answered that nobody was asking, some questions answered poorly and massive glaring issues completely overlooked.

Just your usual FAQ update really.

Does the community have to spam their inbox or something? What passes as frequently asked to them?

A FAQ is (probably) something that leads to a fight during one of their in house test games

which explains why sometimes they are actually really useful, but usually don't answer the questions that come up on internet forums when 'RAW' gamers collides with 'RAI' gamers

Herzlos wrote:
The fact we're on page 2 shows how unclear it is. We *know* what they mean, but I'm sure we always did. The problem is that we're paying a fortune for this stuff, it should at least be clear.

I really pity anyone trying to understand it when English isn't their native language (like Glaswegians or Spaniards)

Funny guy...

 insaniak wrote:
Yay for more loose wording! In trying to fix the 'issue' of immobilised skimmers Jinking, they just said that immobilised vehicles can jink...


And they've just put another nail in Captain Shrike's ability to infiltrate with a unit...




So much stuff that needs fixing, and this is the best they could do.

People argue that the wording of Shrike's rule means that he can always be joined to a nit before deployment, thus granting his USR to said unit.

General Hobbs wrote:
People argue that the wording of Shrike's rule means that he can always be joined to a nit before deployment, thus granting his USR to said unit.

People argue that, yes. And it's how I expect that most people play it. It's not actually what the rule says, though. And now we have the FAQ further complicating the issue.

It's even more frustrating because of the fact that GW are clearly aware that it's an issue, because they fixed it with errata back in 5th edition, before promptly breaking it again for 6th.

This is what we get when GW is staffed by people who seem completely unable to write their way out of a cardboard box combined with a company who could give a feth about the customer's enjoyment of their product after the sale.

The problem is actually that English has the possibility ambiguity. It can be avoided, but often, the author does not notice the ambiguity when the meaning is clear to themselves.

For example, in the dedication: "I dedicate this book to my father, John Smith, and God."

Am I dedicating the book to 3 entities, or is John Smith my father? Being the one to make the dedication, the answer is obvious to me, but not so the reader.

Similarly: "I like bacon and eggs"

Do I like bacon and eggs as one meal, or do I like both foods separately? It sounds silly, but if in the context of "I like cream and sugar" it becomes more significant; because, in my coffee, I don't like either cream, or sugar; I only like my coffee with both cream AND sugar.

In any case, in the statement, "Skimmers that are not also Heavy vehicles or are immobilized have the Jink special rule." must mean Skimmers that are immobilized do not have the Jink special rules -- we can infer this simply because, otherwise, Skimmers that aren't immobilized don't have Jink, while Skimmers that ARE immobilized do have jink, and that would be silly Gramatically, both are possible and legitimate uses of the English language, but like enjoying cream and sugar in my coffee, contextually, there is only one reasonable resolution.

 scottmmmm wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
The fact we're on page 2 shows how unclear it is. We *know* what they mean, but I'm sure we always did. The problem is that we're paying a fortune for this stuff, it should at least be clear.

I really pity anyone trying to understand it when English isn't their native language (like Glaswegians or Spaniards)

Funny guy...

I try. In case you thought I was being nasty, I'm a Weegie myself.

 Talys wrote:
The problem is actually that English has the possibility ambiguity. It can be avoided, but often, the author does not notice the ambiguity when the meaning is clear to themselves.

If you can't use English to communicate a simple concept the problem doesn't lie with English, it lies with the writers grasp of it. People with a poor grasp of language should not be writing rules. Probably because they'll end up using ambiguous terms when clear ones are available.

 Kojiro wrote:

 Talys wrote:
The problem is actually that English has the possibility ambiguity. It can be avoided, but often, the author does not notice the ambiguity when the meaning is clear to themselves.

If you can't use English to communicate a simple concept the problem doesn't lie with English, it lies with the writers grasp of it. People with a poor grasp of language should not be writing rules. Probably because they'll end up using ambiguous terms when clear ones are available.

Agreed. Rules should be as unambiguous and clear as the English language permits.

However, in the specific instance of immobilized vehicles and jink, I equate it to my "cream and sugar" anaology. Put it into context, any reasonable person would read that if I enjoyed cream and sugar with my coffee, I would want both. I don't specifically need to say that I don't want just one and not the other. Similarly, the Jink clause can either mean that only immobilized vehicles have jink, or that only vehicles NOT immobilized have jink. Put in the context of those two possibilities, I don't see how a reasonable person could read the rule as the former.

"Skimmers have the jink special rule, unless they are immobilised or heavy."

That works doesn't it?

 Talys wrote:

However, in the specific instance of immobilized vehicles and jink, I equate it to my "cream and sugar" anaology. Put it into context, any reasonable person would read that if I enjoyed cream and sugar with my coffee, I would want both. I don't specifically need to say that I don't want just one and not the other. Similarly, the Jink clause can either mean that only immobilized vehicles have jink, or that only vehicles NOT immobilized have jink. Put in the context of those two possibilities, I don't see how a reasonable person could read the rule as the former.

The difference is that in your cream and sugar analogy, the reader isn't expected to take your statement of preference as meaning the complete opposite of what you actually say.

So a more apt analogy would be expecting someone to take the statement 'I enjoy cream, but not sugar, in my coffee' to mean that you like both cream and sugar in your coffee... because, you know, that's clearly what you actually meant...

A large part of the problem is that the rules writers just write as if they're having a conversation. They need to write as if they're writing a technical document, something that will be picked apart and analysed, so you have to make sure you write rules the shortest possible way BUT also make sure you include qualifiers whenever something could have multiple interpretations.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
A large part of the problem is that the rules writers just write as if they're having a conversation. They need to write as if they're writing a technical document, something that will be picked apart and analysed, so you have to make sure you write rules the shortest possible way BUT also make sure you include qualifiers whenever something could have multiple interpretations.

What they need to do is take portion of the 75 - 150 dollars that each person paid for their rule book and hire an editor to go over the next book so that things like FAQs dont even have to happen in the first place. What people are willing to put up with for their hard earned money is just staggering sometimes.

Why can't people just admit GW screwed up the writing of this? Their version of the explanation was unnecessarily complicated and it should have been re-structured into something that didn't leave ambiguity, it didn't have to be left in the bizarre clause format that it was.

Putting something out for the benefit of frequently asked questions, which typically represents questions about topics with nuanced rules or explanations, should *probably* be pretty clear if GW is actually trying to resolve the issue.

Hello everyone,

Is the Sternguard point cost in the Marine Codex incorrect? I apologize if this is addressed somewhere, but I have no luck finding a related topic. FAQ also seems a logical place to ask instead of starting a new thread.

I ask because when you calculate every other unit in the Codex that has equivalent starting models/stats, the unit cost is A x B. Where A is the base points cost and B is the number of models.

For example Vanguard = 5 x 19 = 95, Tacticals = 5 x 14 = 70 or any other unit is the same. However, Sternguard are not 5 x 22 = 110, but rather 120.

Thoughts on this? Is that extra 10 supposed to be a Special Ammunition tax or am I missing something else?

Thanks!

Reese wrote:
Hello everyone,

Is the Sternguard point cost in the Marine Codex incorrect? I apologize if this is addressed somewhere, but I have no luck finding a related topic. FAQ also seems a logical place to ask instead of starting a new thread.

I ask because when you calculate every other unit in the Codex that has equivalent starting models/stats, the unit cost is A x B. Where A is the base points cost and B is the number of models.

For example Vanguard = 5 x 19 = 95, Tacticals = 5 x 14 = 70 or any other unit is the same. However, Sternguard are not 5 x 22 = 110, but rather 120.

Thoughts on this? Is that extra 10 supposed to be a Special Ammunition tax or am I missing something else?

Thanks!

Extra 10 points for the sergeant, or squad leader or whatever they call him in Sternguard.

Look at the Tactical Squad. It's 14x5 = 70. But 10 more points to upgrade the sergeant to a veteran sergeant. That 10 points is built into the Sternguard unit.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:A large part of the problem is that the rules writers just write as if they're having a conversation. They need to write as if they're writing a technical document, something that will be picked apart and analysed, so you have to make sure you write rules the shortest possible way BUT also make sure you include qualifiers whenever something could have multiple interpretations.

Yep -- I agree. Most game rules writers do not seem to be technical writers, but having played games for my entire life, I've just accepted this as a reality, and don't expect my RPG and wargame rulebooks to have the clarity of contracts, laws, and and legal documents.

Besides, have you read any recent bills put through the US Congress? It seems that most of them have ambiguity if you look hard enough (some purposely fuzzy); and the DC Circuit and the Supreme Court seem to enjoy blowing billions of dollars every year ruling over what a few words mean, when the original authors never imagined the context of the argument

Accolade wrote:Why can't people just admit GW screwed up the writing of this? Their version of the explanation was unnecessarily complicated and it should have been re-structured into something that didn't leave ambiguity, it didn't have to be left in the bizarre clause format that it was.

Putting something out for the benefit of frequently asked questions, which typically represents questions about topics with nuanced rules or explanations, should *probably* be pretty clear if GW is actually trying to resolve the issue.

I'm pretty happy with stating that GW often has rules that use ambiguous language. It just doesn't bother me or diminish my enjoyment of the game or hobby. Frankly, I see way more discussion on the internet about what rules actually mean, than I do at games. There are a couple of guys that most people avoid like the plague because they seem to enjoy rules lawyering, but most people are pretty easy going about rules interpretations. After all, it is, just... a game

Or, they could employ a technical writer to edit the rules before release....I know, I know we can't have professional editing of documents from a multi-national company...

Here is the funny thing, the official BL page still does no have the new FAQ's up......


EDIT: and just found a the buried link on GW site to the GW FAQ links. Wow they make this hard.

Its a shame (and a sham) that as a community us GW geeks are so divided and lazy, otherwise we could actually do something about this kind of utter disregard for actually providing a good service and product.

This kind of thing happens when companies release clearly buggy or unworkable products and do next to nothing to fix the issue.

http://www.easportslitigation.com/

Id happy start it myself but getting GW fans to agree on anything and actually make an effort rather than just complaining is like herding cats.... with an elephant....

There was the change.org petition, but anything like that requires the petitionee to give a gak.

yeah I remember that, but you do see what I mean right Azrael?

Herding cats mate. That and the remarkable ability for people to not notice stuff that's right in there faces.

I have every confidence that if you had a thread on the topic, top of page 1 for days on end, there'd still be a significant percentage of people who logged on who either wilfully ignored it or just didn't notice.

 Talys wrote:

Accolade wrote:Why can't people just admit GW screwed up the writing of this? Their version of the explanation was unnecessarily complicated and it should have been re-structured into something that didn't leave ambiguity, it didn't have to be left in the bizarre clause format that it was.

Putting something out for the benefit of frequently asked questions, which typically represents questions about topics with nuanced rules or explanations, should *probably* be pretty clear if GW is actually trying to resolve the issue.

I'm pretty happy with stating that GW often has rules that use ambiguous language. It just doesn't bother me or diminish my enjoyment of the game or hobby. Frankly, I see way more discussion on the internet about what rules actually mean, than I do at games. There are a couple of guys that most people avoid like the plague because they seem to enjoy rules lawyering, but most people are pretty easy going about rules interpretations. After all, it is, just... a game

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not rules-lawyering this issue to death (and honestly wouldn't bring the FAQ up except for joking about how GW's writers seem to enjoy being unnecessarily verbose...think Tom Kirby's usage of "otiose" to describe market research). Just initially with this thread we saw some people point out the mistake in wording and then there were others who (a) tried to argue that the wording was definitely right (after all, how can GW be wrong?) or (b) that it was the fault of the English language that these discrepancies came up...when all GW's writers had to do was (as always it seems with them ) avoid the urge to make something sound wordy and intelligent. That's why PP's rules are so liked- they're very straightforward, to the point and written as to avoid multiple interpretations of statements.

But, it seems like GW *may* have taken an idea from PP in that WHFB may soon become much more similar in scale to WM/H, so perhaps there's hope they'll start seeing crystal clarity of rules as a boon. I mean, I'm not betting on it, but it's worth the hope!

Solis Luna Astrum wrote:

Reese wrote:
Hello everyone,

Is the Sternguard point cost in the Marine Codex incorrect? I apologize if this is addressed somewhere, but I have no luck finding a related topic. FAQ also seems a logical place to ask instead of starting a new thread.

I ask because when you calculate every other unit in the Codex that has equivalent starting models/stats, the unit cost is A x B. Where A is the base points cost and B is the number of models.

For example Vanguard = 5 x 19 = 95, Tacticals = 5 x 14 = 70 or any other unit is the same. However, Sternguard are not 5 x 22 = 110, but rather 120.

Thoughts on this? Is that extra 10 supposed to be a Special Ammunition tax or am I missing something else?

Thanks!

Extra 10 points for the sergeant, or squad leader or whatever they call him in Sternguard.

Look at the Tactical Squad. It's 14x5 = 70. But 10 more points to upgrade the sergeant to a veteran sergeant. That 10 points is built into the Sternguard unit.

Thanks for the response, but I think you misunderstood my question.

Yes, there is +10 points for a Tactical Sergeant with improved stats.

But like the Vanguard and Terminator Sergeants, the Sternguard Sergeant has no extra stats. Plus, the Vanguard and Terminator squads are 19 x 5 and 40 x 5. But Sternguard is not 5 x 22 = 110. It is 5 x 22 + 10.

The extra 10 points makes no sense.

Reese wrote:

Solis Luna Astrum wrote:

Reese wrote:
Hello everyone,

Is the Sternguard point cost in the Marine Codex incorrect? I apologize if this is addressed somewhere, but I have no luck finding a related topic. FAQ also seems a logical place to ask instead of starting a new thread.

I ask because when you calculate every other unit in the Codex that has equivalent starting models/stats, the unit cost is A x B. Where A is the base points cost and B is the number of models.

For example Vanguard = 5 x 19 = 95, Tacticals = 5 x 14 = 70 or any other unit is the same. However, Sternguard are not 5 x 22 = 110, but rather 120.

Thoughts on this? Is that extra 10 supposed to be a Special Ammunition tax or am I missing something else?

Thanks!

Extra 10 points for the sergeant, or squad leader or whatever they call him in Sternguard.

Look at the Tactical Squad. It's 14x5 = 70. But 10 more points to upgrade the sergeant to a veteran sergeant. That 10 points is built into the Sternguard unit.

Thanks for the response, but I think you misunderstood my question.

Yes, there is +10 points for a Tactical Sergeant with improved stats.

But like the Vanguard and Terminator Sergeants, the Sternguard Sergeant has no extra stats. Plus, the Vanguard and Terminator squads are 19 x 5 and 40 x 5. But Sternguard is not 5 x 22 = 110. It is 5 x 22 + 10.

The extra 10 points makes no sense.

Chaos Furies in the Chaos Daemons codex are the same. 35pts for 5 and then 6pts each.

Someone in my local store who plays deathwing. Told me that my KFF doesn't work the same way it does in the book. It says in my codex that any character that has a KFF that embarks on a vehicle that vehicle and anything 6" around it get a 5+ invul save. Did they change this or not?

TheMisterBold wrote:
Someone in my local store who plays deathwing. Told me that my KFF doesn't work the same way it does in the book. It says in my codex that any character that has a KFF that embarks on a vehicle that vehicle and anything 6" around it get a 5+ invul save. Did they change this or not?

Not trying to be a Dick, so sorry if it comes out that way. I say play your way unless it is mentioned in the FAQ. What does the FAQ say? Also he has to prove you wrong since you showed in your book that you are correct. Now you have a problem.

Question now is what FAQ do you use? Do you use the Black Library 40K FAQ or the GW 40K FAQ? They are not the same. Well at least not the same when I last checked.

Davor wrote:
Question now is what FAQ do you use? Do you use the Black Library 40K FAQ or the GW 40K FAQ? They are not the same. Well at least not the same when I last checked.

Why would you use an older FAQ over a newer one, regardless of which website it is on?

TheMisterBold wrote:
Someone in my local store who plays deathwing. Told me that my KFF doesn't work the same way it does in the book. It says in my codex that any character that has a KFF that embarks on a vehicle that vehicle and anything 6" around it get a 5+ invul save. Did they change this or not?

That's not what it says in the Ork codex.

Are you using the 4th edition codex?

 Ghaz wrote:

Davor wrote:
Question now is what FAQ do you use? Do you use the Black Library 40K FAQ or the GW 40K FAQ? They are not the same. Well at least not the same when I last checked.

Why would you use an older FAQ over a newer one, regardless of which website it is on?

Which one is the current one? Easy to say it's the GW one because its on their site. Problem is, we have been going on the BL site so they are just as legal. Since they are legal but haven't been updated which one do you use? By that I mean for the person who got their FAQ from Black Library and doesn't know GW has the current one and he makes his list from that BL thinking it's the current one and then you have his opponent who is saying he is wrong not realizing he is using the BL FAQ which is legal as well since we have been using that site for the last year for the FAQs. All it can do is start a lot of arguments since the opponent will say it's in the FAQ and the player saying no it's not and he pulls out his updated FAQ.

All this does now is add another lawyer of lawyering before having a game saying "What FAQ do you have? GW or BL one?" Other wise it's not fair for both parties since they are going by what they think is the updated FAQ.

GW has official FAQ on there own site now too?

 Desubot wrote:
GW has official FAQ on there own site now too?

Bottom of the GW website. Been there for a long time -- although it used to link to a page on the BL website (I think?). On the home page of GW, look under "Here to Help" -- it's called "Rules Errata".

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-CA/Rules-Errata

WARNING: if you click on that link, you will change your country to Canada. So don't start a new thread saying that all the prices were jacked up 20%.

Huh.. I though that got removed a while back

Davor wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Davor wrote:
Question now is what FAQ do you use? Do you use the Black Library 40K FAQ or the GW 40K FAQ? They are not the same. Well at least not the same when I last checked.

Why would you use an older FAQ over a newer one, regardless of which website it is on?

Which one is the current one? Easy to say it's the GW one because its on their site. Problem is, we have been going on the BL site so they are just as legal. Since they are legal but haven't been updated which one do you use? By that I mean for the person who got their FAQ from Black Library and doesn't know GW has the current one and he makes his list from that BL thinking it's the current one and then you have his opponent who is saying he is wrong not realizing he is using the BL FAQ which is legal as well since we have been using that site for the last year for the FAQs. All it can do is start a lot of arguments since the opponent will say it's in the FAQ and the player saying no it's not and he pulls out his updated FAQ.

All this does now is add another lawyer of lawyering before having a game saying "What FAQ do you have? GW or BL one?" Other wise it's not fair for both parties since they are going by what they think is the updated FAQ.

You do realize that both FAQs are dated and both FAQs have version numbers? So why would you use the one on the Black Library website (version 1.0, updated 24th July 2014) instead of the one on GW's website (version 1.1, updated January 2015)?

It also hardly seems like a particularly big deal if someone doesn't have the latest FAQ, given the ridiculously small handful of things actually covered by those FAQs currently.

Desubot wrote:GW has official FAQ on there own site now too?

Ghaz wrote:

Davor wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Davor wrote:
Question now is what FAQ do you use? Do you use the Black Library 40K FAQ or the GW 40K FAQ? They are not the same. Well at least not the same when I last checked.

Why would you use an older FAQ over a newer one, regardless of which website it is on?

Which one is the current one? Easy to say it's the GW one because its on their site. Problem is, we have been going on the BL site so they are just as legal. Since they are legal but haven't been updated which one do you use? By that I mean for the person who got their FAQ from Black Library and doesn't know GW has the current one and he makes his list from that BL thinking it's the current one and then you have his opponent who is saying he is wrong not realizing he is using the BL FAQ which is legal as well since we have been using that site for the last year for the FAQs. All it can do is start a lot of arguments since the opponent will say it's in the FAQ and the player saying no it's not and he pulls out his updated FAQ.

All this does now is add another lawyer of lawyering before having a game saying "What FAQ do you have? GW or BL one?" Other wise it's not fair for both parties since they are going by what they think is the updated FAQ.

You do realize that both FAQs are dated and both FAQs have version numbers? So why would you use the one on the Black Library website (version 1.0, updated 24th July 2014) instead of the one on GW's website (version 1.1, updated January 2015)?

Do I realize? Yes I do. But what has that anything to what I said? Look above. Someone who didn't know there is more updated FAQs on the GW site.

What did I say? What about people who don't know and only use the Black Library site? As I said they don't know the GW site exists. So in their eyes the BL is the current one. So they make their army to the current FAQs.

So again, who is right and who is wrong. The player A makes his army to the BL FAQ. His/her opponent, player B says, "Incorrect you are using an old FAQ".
Player A says "No my army is playing legally."
Player B says "No you are using 1.1, there is 1.2 on the GW site."
Player A says " Well I didn't know. If I knew I would have played differently then."

Now Player A is not having a fun game because he was thrown a curve ball to no fault of his own. So should he suffer because he didn't know. Should player B suffer because he knew and is playing by what he thought is the current version because he knew the latest version is on the GW site.

So again, who is correct, and who is not? I say both are correct and nobody should suffer when they are playing a game. Problem is someone is going to feel shafted and have a less fun time playing now for that game. Hopefully a compromise can be done between to grown up men.

So what do you do when you play someone who is playing by the "current FAQ" in their eyes and don't know about the GW more updated FAQs.

You asked which FAQ was the current one. You were given the answer. If one player doesn't know about a newer FAQ then the two agree which FAQ applies to their game at that time. Even if the FAQs were all in one location, there's no guarantee that either player won't necessarily miss an updated FAQ. You're trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. It's not as big of a deal as you're making it out to be.

Davor wrote:
So what do you do when you play someone who is playing by the "current FAQ" in their eyes and don't know about the GW more updated FAQs.

The same thing you do any other time you come across a rule that one of the players isn't aware of: You remember that it's just a game, and get on with it.


Even when the FAQs were all in one place, there were an awful lot of players who weren't aware they existed. And a lot of players don't find out about FAQ updates the instant they happen. It's really not a big deal.

I find a scenario where a person knows FAQs exist but doesn't keep up with their release.

 insaniak wrote:

Davor wrote:
So what do you do when you play someone who is playing by the "current FAQ" in their eyes and don't know about the GW more updated FAQs.

The same thing you do any other time you come across a rule that one of the players isn't aware of: You remember that it's just a game, and get on with it.


Even when the FAQs were all in one place, there were an awful lot of players who weren't aware they existed. And a lot of players don't find out about FAQ updates the instant they happen. It's really not a big deal.

It's not, it's just another example of a piss poor job done by GW.

Sure, no argument there. I'd go further and say that the FAQs as they currently stand are next to useless, since they cover a bare handful of issues and ignore most of the actual problems with the current game.


But that's also a part of why I don't think it's a big deal if someone doesn't have the latest one.