just found out about this clarification on the FAQ released and I was shocked that chapter master can't be used in demi-company.

I've been letting my friend use his (in every list) for the past 2 years!! With no issue...it's not game breaking and quite surprising.

Today I just wanted to research this online and see if this was ever argued and lo and behold Dakka never disappoints lol

Does everyone that called this right feel vindicated once GW said 'no chapter master!' ?

Because my next question is...does this same ruling apply to every other formation that has a Captain requirement? I can't find a single formation that specifically allows a chapter master so does this mean only in CAD?

I mean a bunch of us tried to tell everyone this, but no one wanted to listen. If you looked at the named alternatives for Captains and Chaplains and see that not a single named Chapter Master was an "alternate option" it was obvious.

 quickfuze wrote:
I mean a bunch of us tried to tell everyone this, but no one wanted to listen. If you looked at the named alternatives for Captains and Chaplains and see that not a single named Chapter Master was an "alternate option" it was obvious.

Wish i had been around for that argument if only to just know that there WAS an alternate interpretation.

Any how is the chapter master available in ANY formation?

 quickfuze wrote:
I mean a bunch of us tried to tell everyone this, but no one wanted to listen. If you looked at the named alternatives for Captains and Chaplains and see that not a single named Chapter Master was an "alternate option" it was obvious.

Those named alternatives meant nothing as they are separate units which were not upgrades.

And those arguments (as well as the FAQ) ignore one very significant fact that Formations are said to list the units which make up the Formations, not the units or the models which make up the Formations. If a unit is not allowed a specific upgrade, it should be listed in the Restrictions (an argument that also fits the Canoptek Harvest question).

But hey, I guess the FAQ group expect us to be mind readers and ignore the written words of the game and not take those terms for how they took time to define them.

I had 1 question...still unanswered.

Is chapter master legal in ANY formation available to space marines?

 Akaiyou wrote:
I had 1 question...still unanswered.

Is chapter master legal in ANY formation available to space marines?

No, unless the Formation in question explicitly says, "1 unit of Captain."

 Charistoph wrote:

 quickfuze wrote:
I mean a bunch of us tried to tell everyone this, but no one wanted to listen. If you looked at the named alternatives for Captains and Chaplains and see that not a single named Chapter Master was an "alternate option" it was obvious.

Those named alternatives meant nothing as they are separate units which were not upgrades.

And those arguments (as well as the FAQ) ignore one very significant fact that Formations are said to list the units which make up the Formations, not the units or the models which make up the Formations. If a unit is not allowed a specific upgrade, it should be listed in the Restrictions (an argument that also fits the Canoptek Harvest question).

But hey, I guess the FAQ group expect us to be mind readers and ignore the written words of the game and not take those terms for how they took time to define them.

You can tell yourself that....or you can accept the fact that some people can read something, apply some common sense, use president and get the right answer. Others stick their fingers in their ears until finally they have no option to accept because GW comes out and says "that actually is exactly what we meant".

Cool story bro.....

Akaiyou wrote:I had 1 question...still unanswered.

Is chapter master legal in ANY formation available to space marines?

It depends on whose standards you are going by.

If you believe that Detachments only list units, than any Codex Marines Formation list that presents a Captain would allow for a Chapter Master, unless specifically Restricted.

If you believe that Detachments can list actual models instead of units (that the FAQ considers), then I am not aware of one that actually allows a Chapter Master model to be included.

Keep in mind, that Helbrecht, Kantor, and Calgar are not Chapter Master models any more then they are Captain models or Chaplain models.

quickfuze wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 quickfuze wrote:
I mean a bunch of us tried to tell everyone this, but no one wanted to listen. If you looked at the named alternatives for Captains and Chaplains and see that not a single named Chapter Master was an "alternate option" it was obvious.

Those named alternatives meant nothing as they are separate units which were not upgrades.

And those arguments (as well as the FAQ) ignore one very significant fact that Formations are said to list the units which make up the Formations, not the units or the models which make up the Formations. If a unit is not allowed a specific upgrade, it should be listed in the Restrictions (an argument that also fits the Canoptek Harvest question).

But hey, I guess the FAQ group expect us to be mind readers and ignore the written words of the game and not take those terms for how they took time to define them.

You can tell yourself that....or you can accept the fact that some people can read something, apply some common sense, use president and get the right answer. Others stick their fingers in their ears until finally they have no option to accept because GW comes out and says "that actually is exactly what we meant".

Cool story bro.....

I don't know how using an executive can get an answer. Most executives don't deal with the rules in a corporate environment.

But, I do know how to use precedent to come to an understanding of a situation. But the person who is sticking their fingers in their ears is you, because you do not pay attention to the rules that are written and prefer to go your own way. That's fine on a local basis, but not everyone is likely to be so accommodating.

If the base rules tell you that the Formations give you units, and the unit has an upgrade option for a model, and the Formation carries ZERO Restrictions, why would someone think that there is a restriction to which a customizable model profile one is supposed to use?

Just because Helbrect (Master of a Chapter which doesn't follow codex organization), Kantor (who does follow the codex chapter organization), and Calgar (Master of Codex Poster Boys) choose not to lead Demi-Companies does not mean your own Chapter Master would not do so for X reasons. Any consideration of the Uniques inclusion, or lack thereof, is 100% fluff, and no more a rules consideration than any other stories written about them but not included in the rules. For example, High Marshal Helbrecht of the Black Templars who was given the authority of space over Armageddon due to his expertise and experience and is master of the Templar's chief Battle Barge DOES NOT HAVE ORBITAL STRIKE. Should I then consider that an oversight and give it to him anyway without any discussion with my opponent?

There are formations called Stormlance/Pinion Battle Demi-Company, which is equvalent of Battle Demi-Company accessible by some Chapters in other Strike Forces or standalone Formation available by all Chapters.
In Stormlance/Pinion Battle Demi-Company you MAY take Vulkan He'stan, High Marshal Helbrecht or Pedro Kantor in place of Captain.
Can we upgrade Captain to Chapter Master? We do not know because we don't have any rules to support, because FAQ forbids that change in Battle Demi-Company and not in Stromlance/Pinion Battle-Demi Company...
Why do we have to argue over so simple rulings, why can't GW write something right...

 danyboy wrote:
There are formations called Stormlance/Pinion Battle Demi-Company, which is equvalent of Battle Demi-Company accessible by some Chapters in other Strike Forces or standalone Formation available by all Chapters.
In Stormlance/Pinion Battle Demi-Company you MAY take Vulkan He'stan, High Marshal Helbrecht or Pedro Kantor in place of Captain.
Can we upgrade Captain to Chapter Master? We do not know because we don't have any rules to support, because FAQ forbids that change in Battle Demi-Company and not in Stromlance/Pinion Battle-Demi Company...
Why do we have to argue over so simple rulings, why can't GW write something right...

From the rulebook FAQ:

"Q: When listing Formations, sometimes it states ‘1 model’ (like 1 Tomb Spyder), while other times it lists ‘1 Unit of models’ (like 1 unit of Tomb Blades). Are these interchangeable?
A: No. The former means a single model of the type listed, while the later means a single unit of the type listed."

 danyboy wrote:
There are formations called Stormlance/Pinion Battle Demi-Company, which is equvalent of Battle Demi-Company accessible by some Chapters in other Strike Forces or standalone Formation available by all Chapters.
In Stormlance/Pinion Battle Demi-Company you MAY take Vulkan He'stan, High Marshal Helbrecht or Pedro Kantor in place of Captain.
Can we upgrade Captain to Chapter Master? We do not know because we don't have any rules to support, because FAQ forbids that change in Battle Demi-Company and not in Stromlance/Pinion Battle-Demi Company...
Why do we have to argue over so simple rulings, why can't GW write something right...

They are named specific to a chapter in a non generic Battle Coy. To note Vulcan He´Stan is not the salamanders chapter master. The general Marine Coy would never be directly led by a Chapter master. They would always have a Captain and Chaplain who answers to the Chapter Master within the larger force.

I'd say the draft answer was pretty much spot-on: They never intended Captains to be upgraded to Chaptermasters, but the rules technically allowed it. Even though I've always been of the "yes, swapping is allowed" camp I'm glad they changed that wishy-washy answer to a clear "no". But technically it's an errata, not a FAQ - just like many other entries in the FAQs.

 quickfuze wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 quickfuze wrote:
I mean a bunch of us tried to tell everyone this, but no one wanted to listen. If you looked at the named alternatives for Captains and Chaplains and see that not a single named Chapter Master was an "alternate option" it was obvious.

Those named alternatives meant nothing as they are separate units which were not upgrades.

And those arguments (as well as the FAQ) ignore one very significant fact that Formations are said to list the units which make up the Formations, not the units or the models which make up the Formations. If a unit is not allowed a specific upgrade, it should be listed in the Restrictions (an argument that also fits the Canoptek Harvest question).

But hey, I guess the FAQ group expect us to be mind readers and ignore the written words of the game and not take those terms for how they took time to define them.

You can tell yourself that....or you can accept the fact that some people can read something, apply some common sense, use president and get the right answer. Others stick their fingers in their ears until finally they have no option to accept because GW comes out and says "that actually is exactly what we meant".

Cool story bro.....

You realize that even FAQ team at first was allowing it in the draft version? Not so clear cut then...

The biggest problem with this is that GW is perfectly fine in letting us use upgrades that change a unit in other formations, for instance they've specifically said that any detachment that lists Kabalite Warriors can upgrade said Warrios to Trueborn and the same applies to Wyches being upgraded to Bloodbrides.

In short, GW forgot to put a restriction in and are now pissed that the rest of the world couldn't read their mind.

 Imateria wrote:
The biggest problem with this is that GW is perfectly fine in letting us use upgrades that change a unit in other formations, for instance they've specifically said that any detachment that lists Kabalite Warriors can upgrade said Warrios to Trueborn and the same applies to Wyches being upgraded to Bloodbrides.

In short, GW forgot to put a restriction in and are now pissed that the rest of the world couldn't read their mind.

No that was in answer to a specific question about a specific formation not all formations. People are just taking as if its ok for one is ok for all.

 Imateria wrote:
The biggest problem with this is that GW is perfectly fine in letting us use upgrades that change a unit in other formations, for instance they've specifically said that any detachment that lists Kabalite Warriors can upgrade said Warrios to Trueborn and the same applies to Wyches being upgraded to Bloodbrides.

In short, GW forgot to put a restriction in and are now pissed that the rest of the world couldn't read their mind.

That's not really a problem at all. Regardless of whether or not it's made up of Warriors or Trueborn, it's still a Kabalite Warriors unit since Kabalite Warriors is the name listed on the Datasheet. There is no such thing as a Trueborn Unit... just a Kabalite Warriors unit composed entirely of Trueborn.

The core problem is that GW has garbage data integrity. They use data points differently in different publications. They have no real consistency. The lack of consistency and proper term definition is what causes ambiguity and then arguments.

Just out of curiosity, is there anything that distinguishes between cases like a unit taking a rhino upgrade in a formation compared to a unit taking the chapter master upgrade? I can't imagine they intend to prevent other upgrades, but if there's a rule that shows the distinction between the two cases I'd like to see it.

Lol so no chapter masters in formations that don't specify his inclusion.

I needed to know because again I've allowed my friend to play it as a chapter master for the past couple years with no issue.

Given the absurd number of formations space marines get, I wanted to know if the same ruling would apply to all current 'companies' out there or if there are exceptions. Sounds like there's no FAQ for the rest of them, but logic and common sense suggests that the same ruling would apply

 Charistoph wrote:

 quickfuze wrote:
I mean a bunch of us tried to tell everyone this, but no one wanted to listen. If you looked at the named alternatives for Captains and Chaplains and see that not a single named Chapter Master was an "alternate option" it was obvious.

Those named alternatives meant nothing as they are separate units which were not upgrades.

And those arguments (as well as the FAQ) ignore one very significant fact that Formations are said to list the units which make up the Formations, not the units or the models which make up the Formations. If a unit is not allowed a specific upgrade, it should be listed in the Restrictions (an argument that also fits the Canoptek Harvest question).

But hey, I guess the FAQ group expect us to be mind readers and ignore the written words of the game and not take those terms for how they took time to define them.

The named alternatives mean everything if you're looking at RAI. Since they FAQ'd it so you can't use the Chapter Master, that list meant something for how they intended it to work. (Not that they shouldn't have made it clear by spelling out in the rules you don't get to upgrade to Chapter Master).

 Akaiyou wrote:
Lol so no chapter masters in formations that don't specify his inclusion.

I needed to know because again I've allowed my friend to play it as a chapter master for the past couple years with no issue.

Given the absurd number of formations space marines get, I wanted to know if the same ruling would apply to all current 'companies' out there or if there are exceptions. Sounds like there's no FAQ for the rest of them, but logic and common sense suggests that the same ruling would apply

Right now it's thanks to the FAQ this:

If the formation says "1 Captain", you may not upgrade it to a Chapter Master model
If the formation says "1 unit of Captain", you may upgrade it to a Chapter Master model

I'm not aware of any formation saying "unit of Captain", so there's your answer.

---

From a game rules / balance PoV this makes no sense as it's just a regular upgrade that can be purchased for the unit of "Captain". But from a design / intention PoV it does make sense as it reflects what the designers intended.

Either you houserule it or you stick with what the designers told us.

nekooni wrote:But technically it's an errata, not a FAQ - just like many other entries in the FAQs.

No... It is an FAQ. There is an Errata section which does not include this change. GW FAQs are their answers to the situation. Their version of a House Rule or the call they make in those situations. It does not change the written rule, therefore it is not an errata or an amendment which are specifically stated as changing the written rule.

rawne2510 wrote:

 Imateria wrote:
The biggest problem with this is that GW is perfectly fine in letting us use upgrades that change a unit in other formations, for instance they've specifically said that any detachment that lists Kabalite Warriors can upgrade said Warrios to Trueborn and the same applies to Wyches being upgraded to Bloodbrides.

In short, GW forgot to put a restriction in and are now pissed that the rest of the world couldn't read their mind.

No that was in answer to a specific question about a specific formation not all formations. People are just taking as if its ok for one is ok for all.

No, he is right on point. The basic rules state that Detachments are made up of units. Those detachments which list specific things are noted as referencing units or army list entries which represent the units you take in those detachments.

From that basic rule, why would one think that it is referring to a single model?

Then going by that precedent established in the rulebook FAQ (doesn't mention unit, it is listing a model), why would it not continue on from there as precedent (if you are following that FAQ)?

Kriswall wrote:The core problem is that GW has garbage data integrity. They use data points differently in different publications. They have no real consistency. The lack of consistency and proper term definition is what causes ambiguity and then arguments.

A thousand times this. It has been a problem in every edition. It is just more noticeable as they are cramming more and more things in to the system without doing a proper database check. It is noticeable in things like how a Super-Heavy's ability to shoot at different targets interacts with the new Shooting Phase. These rules are so illogical they would fault on assembly if they were computer code. We are smarter than computers, though, and we can make adjustments as we choose, but then that means clearing up the faults with your opponent an hour before you play a game.

lessthanjeff wrote:Just out of curiosity, is there anything that distinguishes between cases like a unit taking a rhino upgrade in a formation compared to a unit taking the chapter master upgrade? I can't imagine they intend to prevent other upgrades, but if there's a rule that shows the distinction between the two cases I'd like to see it.

There isn't any written rule that distinguishes it unless it is listed in Restrictions. There is an FAQ House Rule which states that Detachments can indeed list specific models instead of units, but there is absolutely zero rules to support this consideration.

 Akaiyou wrote:
Lol so no chapter masters in formations that don't specify his inclusion.

I needed to know because again I've allowed my friend to play it as a chapter master for the past couple years with no issue.

Given the absurd number of formations space marines get, I wanted to know if the same ruling would apply to all current 'companies' out there or if there are exceptions. Sounds like there's no FAQ for the rest of them, but logic and common sense suggests that the same ruling would apply

Probably best to assume that unless you get one that says one unit of Captain. The new Rise of the Primarch book might have a detachment that lets you do it; I haven't seen it yet to know one way or the other.

 Charistoph wrote:

nekooni wrote:But technically it's an errata, not a FAQ - just like many other entries in the FAQs.

No... It is an FAQ. There is an Errata section which does not include this change. GW FAQs are their answers to the situation. Their version of a House Rule or the call they make in those situations. It does not change the written rule, therefore it is not an errata or an amendment which are specifically stated as changing the written rule.

I'm not going to argue with you whether to call them "errata" or "mandatory houserules provided by the games designer". I don't care. They change how the rules are to be applied, that's literally all that's important.

nekooni wrote:
I'm not going to argue with you whether to call them "errata" or "mandatory houserules provided by the games designer". I don't care. They change how the rules are to be applied, that's literally all that's important.

I am not calling them that, GW is calling them that. FAQs are not listed as changing the rules by GW's own documentation.

From the rulebook update:

Each update is split into three sections: Amendments, Errata and ‘Frequently Asked Questions’. The Errata corrects any mistakes in the rulebook, while the Amendments bring the rulebook up to date with the latest version of the rules. The Frequently Asked Questions (or ‘FAQ’) section answers commonly asked questions about the rules.

Why do people not read this and think I'm making this up? It's their terms.

 Charistoph wrote:

nekooni wrote:
I'm not going to argue with you whether to call them "errata" or "mandatory houserules provided by the games designer". I don't care. They change how the rules are to be applied, that's literally all that's important.

I am not calling them that, GW is calling them that. FAQs are not listed as changing the rules by GW's own documentation.

From the rulebook update:

Each update is split into three sections: Amendments, Errata and ‘Frequently Asked Questions’. The Errata corrects any mistakes in the rulebook, while the Amendments bring the rulebook up to date with the latest version of the rules. The Frequently Asked Questions (or ‘FAQ’) section answers commonly asked questions about the rules.

Why do people not read this and think I'm making this up? It's their terms.

GW could say the sky is red and clouds are made of cotton candy. Doesn't make it true. There are instances of unambiguous rules being changed via an FAQ. That's a de facto errata. GW can call it an FAQ, but the reason so many people say it's really an errata... is that it's really an errata. GW would be better off simply changing the wording to match their intent INSTEAD of leaving incorrect wording and just adding a question that tells us we're all reading things wrong.

The rules need a full rewrite by a good technical writer.

 Kriswall wrote:
GW could say the sky is red and clouds are made of cotton candy. Doesn't make it true. There are instances of unambiguous rules being changed via an FAQ. That's a de facto errata. GW can call it an FAQ, but the reason so many people say it's really an errata... is that it's really an errata. GW would be better off simply changing the wording to match their intent INSTEAD of leaving incorrect wording and just adding a question that tells us we're all reading things wrong.

The rules need a full rewrite by a good technical writer.

GW does not own, create, or maintain the sky and the clouds. They do own, create, and maintain their rules, so the comparison is irrelevant. GW is not the ones calling the FAQ an errata, that is the people out here. Know the difference. FAQs have only the power that the people chose to give them, as they do not change the written rule.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
GW could say the sky is red and clouds are made of cotton candy. Doesn't make it true. There are instances of unambiguous rules being changed via an FAQ. That's a de facto errata. GW can call it an FAQ, but the reason so many people say it's really an errata... is that it's really an errata. GW would be better off simply changing the wording to match their intent INSTEAD of leaving incorrect wording and just adding a question that tells us we're all reading things wrong.

The rules need a full rewrite by a good technical writer.

GW does not own, create, or maintain the sky and the clouds. They do own, create, and maintain their rules, so the comparison is irrelevant. GW is not the ones calling the FAQ an errata, that is the people out here. Know the difference. FAQs have only the power that the people chose to give them, as they do not change the written rule.

Dude. Relax. This isn't the sort of battle you draw a line in the sand over. The reality of the situation is that GW is using the term FAQ in a way that doesn't fit the standard definition. The common understanding is that FAQs are used to clarify ambiguous situations. GW is sometimes using them to change unambiguous rules.

1. Rules: "If x happens, do y."
2. FAQ Question: "If x happens, should I do y?"
3. FAQ Answer: "No. When x happens, you should so z."

That may be labelled as an FAQ, but it's really an Errata. An unambiguous rule is being changed, not clarified.

So... they can call it whatever they want. It may follow a question and answer format, but it fits the common definition for an errata and not for an FAQ.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
GW could say the sky is red and clouds are made of cotton candy. Doesn't make it true. There are instances of unambiguous rules being changed via an FAQ. That's a de facto errata. GW can call it an FAQ, but the reason so many people say it's really an errata... is that it's really an errata. GW would be better off simply changing the wording to match their intent INSTEAD of leaving incorrect wording and just adding a question that tells us we're all reading things wrong.

The rules need a full rewrite by a good technical writer.

GW does not own, create, or maintain the sky and the clouds. They do own, create, and maintain their rules, so the comparison is irrelevant. GW is not the ones calling the FAQ an errata, that is the people out here. Know the difference. FAQs have only the power that the people chose to give them, as they do not change the written rule.

Dude. Relax. This isn't the sort of battle you draw a line in the sand over. The reality of the situation is that GW is using the term FAQ in a way that doesn't fit the standard definition. The common understanding is that FAQs are used to clarify ambiguous situations. GW is sometimes using them to change unambiguous rules.

1. Rules: "If x happens, do y."
2. FAQ Question: "If x happens, should I do y?"
3. FAQ Answer: "No. When x happens, you should so z."

That may be labelled as an FAQ, but it's really an Errata. An unambiguous rule is being changed, not clarified.

So... they can call it whatever they want. It may follow a question and answer format, but it fits the common definition for an errata and not for an FAQ.

Thank you, at least someone understands what I was saying.

You guys should enter the arena of the Dark Eldar. lol this thread has become a bloodbath over a simple question or wether or not the same rule applies to other formations.

 Kriswall wrote:
Dude. Relax. This isn't the sort of battle you draw a line in the sand over. The reality of the situation is that GW is using the term FAQ in a way that doesn't fit the standard definition. The common understanding is that FAQs are used to clarify ambiguous situations. GW is sometimes using them to change unambiguous rules.

1. Rules: "If x happens, do y."
2. FAQ Question: "If x happens, should I do y?"
3. FAQ Answer: "No. When x happens, you should so z."

That may be labelled as an FAQ, but it's really an Errata. An unambiguous rule is being changed, not clarified.

So... they can call it whatever they want. It may follow a question and answer format, but it fits the common definition for an errata and not for an FAQ.

No, by GW's definition, it is NOT an Errata. Why does nobody seem to get this?

Without reading any of this, has anyone specifically said that the chapter master cannot be in a demi company?

A dark eldar FAQ gives some information, specifically Kabalite Warriors being upgraded to Kabalite Trueborn in formations, and making it completely legal to do so.

If they specifically disallowed it I would be very confused because that is a very clear contradiction of their own rules, although I can't say I'm surprised.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Dude. Relax. This isn't the sort of battle you draw a line in the sand over. The reality of the situation is that GW is using the term FAQ in a way that doesn't fit the standard definition. The common understanding is that FAQs are used to clarify ambiguous situations. GW is sometimes using them to change unambiguous rules.

1. Rules: "If x happens, do y."
2. FAQ Question: "If x happens, should I do y?"
3. FAQ Answer: "No. When x happens, you should so z."

That may be labelled as an FAQ, but it's really an Errata. An unambiguous rule is being changed, not clarified.

So... they can call it whatever they want. It may follow a question and answer format, but it fits the common definition for an errata and not for an FAQ.

No, by GW's definition, it is NOT an Errata. Why does nobody seem to get this?

Because that is exactly what it is, clearly spelled out by Kriswall.

gummyofallbears wrote:Without reading any of this, has anyone specifically said that the chapter master cannot be in a demi company?

A dark eldar FAQ gives some information, specifically Kabalite Warriors being upgraded to Kabalite Trueborn in formations, and making it completely legal to do so.

If they specifically disallowed it I would be very confused because that is a very clear contradiction of their own rules, although I can't say I'm surprised.

Yes, someone did.

Charistoph wrote:

Akaiyou wrote:Is chapter master legal in ANY formation available to space marines?

It depends on whose standards you are going by.

If you believe that Detachments only list units, than any Codex Marines Formation list that presents a Captain would allow for a Chapter Master, unless specifically Restricted.

If you believe that Detachments can list actual models instead of units (that the FAQ considers), then I am not aware of one that actually allows a Chapter Master model to be included.

Keep in mind, that Helbrecht, Kantor, and Calgar are not Chapter Master models any more then they are Captain models or Chaplain models.

Fragile wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Dude. Relax. This isn't the sort of battle you draw a line in the sand over. The reality of the situation is that GW is using the term FAQ in a way that doesn't fit the standard definition. The common understanding is that FAQs are used to clarify ambiguous situations. GW is sometimes using them to change unambiguous rules.

1. Rules: "If x happens, do y."
2. FAQ Question: "If x happens, should I do y?"
3. FAQ Answer: "No. When x happens, you should so z."

That may be labelled as an FAQ, but it's really an Errata. An unambiguous rule is being changed, not clarified.

So... they can call it whatever they want. It may follow a question and answer format, but it fits the common definition for an errata and not for an FAQ.

No, by GW's definition, it is NOT an Errata. Why does nobody seem to get this?

Because that is exactly what it is, clearly spelled out by Kriswall.

So we reject GW's definition in favor of Kriswall's? I even provided GW's definition of what an Errata is. That has been my point regarding this.

 gummyofallbears wrote:
Without reading any of this, has anyone specifically said that the chapter master cannot be in a demi company?

A dark eldar FAQ gives some information, specifically Kabalite Warriors being upgraded to Kabalite Trueborn in formations, and making it completely legal to do so.

If they specifically disallowed it I would be very confused because that is a very clear contradiction of their own rules, although I can't say I'm surprised.

It's in the new Codex: Space Marines FAQ that you can't take a chapter master in a demi company.

Charistoph, Nobody bloody cares what GW "defines" as "errata" or "FAQ" - except for you. That's literally it. We all get your "point".

And it's not "Kriswalls definition", it's simply what those words commonly mean.

lol... just run a chaplain?

nekooni wrote:
Charistoph, Nobody bloody cares what GW "defines" as "errata" or "FAQ" - except for you. That's literally it. We all get your "point".

And it's not "Kriswalls definition", it's simply what those words commonly mean.

He's not the only one. I, for instance, care as well and it's an important distinction.

Audustum wrote:

nekooni wrote:
Charistoph, Nobody bloody cares what GW "defines" as "errata" or "FAQ" - except for you. That's literally it. We all get your "point".

And it's not "Kriswalls definition", it's simply what those words commonly mean.

He's not the only one. I, for instance, care as well and it's an important distinction.

The distinction between FAQ and errata or the distinction between the content of GWs FAQ and GWs definition of a FAQ? Because he's only arguing about the later one.

nekooni wrote:Charistoph, Nobody bloody cares what GW "defines" as "errata" or "FAQ" - except for you. That's literally it. We all get your "point".

If we do not care about GW definitions, then that reduces what we learn and understand from them to properly apply them. If you want to understand what they are saying and how it is applied, you have to use their definitions in order to properly work them.

nekooni wrote:And it's not "Kriswalls definition", it's simply what those words commonly mean.

You were the one who referred to Kriswall's provided definition. I referred back to it for clarity and reference.

I have never seen anyone, before this set of updates, consider an FAQ to actually rewrite the rules to correct errors. They have always been considerations on how GW plays it. In other words, their House Rules.

Look up the definition of "errata" in the dictionary. Look at what the definition of "errata" is on the updates. These FAQs do not do the same things nor do they do them in the same manner.

One advantage of an Errata in this day of digital uploads is that the Errata and Amendments get updated to the digital version. The FAQs do not and have to be uploaded separately. This is a practical aspect that you all do not seem to understand.

OCaermada wrote:lol... just run a chaplain?

One cannot run two Chaplains in a Battle Company for the Free Transports. It is 1 Captain and 1 Chaplain for that setup. If you run 2 Chaplains, it does not qualify as a Battle Company and all the Transports cost points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nekooni wrote:
The distinction between FAQ and errata or the distinction between the content of GWs FAQ and GWs definition of a FAQ? Because he's only arguing about the later one.

No, I am arguing the former. There is a distinction between an FAQ and an errata, both in normal parlance and in GW's updates (yes, the documents are called that now, while the page is called "errata").

OP is regarding demi companies... plus lighten up bro...

 OCaermada wrote:
OP is regarding demi companies... plus lighten up bro...

Demi Companies make up the Battle Company. Read up bro.

 Charistoph wrote:

nekooni wrote:Charistoph, Nobody bloody cares what GW "defines" as "errata" or "FAQ" - except for you. That's literally it. We all get your "point".

If we do not care about GW definitions, then that reduces what we learn and understand from them to properly apply them. If you want to understand what they are saying and how it is applied, you have to use their definitions in order to properly work them.

nekooni wrote:And it's not "Kriswalls definition", it's simply what those words commonly mean.

You were the one who referred to Kriswall's provided definition. I referred back to it for clarity and reference.

I have never seen anyone, before this set of updates, consider an FAQ to actually rewrite the rules to correct errors. They have always been considerations on how GW plays it. In other words, their House Rules.

Look up the definition of "errata" in the dictionary. Look at what the definition of "errata" is on the updates. These FAQs do not do the same things nor do they do them in the same manner.

Kriswall wrote:That may be labelled as an FAQ, but it's really an Errata.

What exactly are you arguing then? That we should ignore what GW labels as "FAQ" whenever we think it's not supported by the rules as written? That these FAQ entries are just suggested houserules by GW?

I treat these FAQ entries as errata that change the rules if necessary. It's because - as I said earlier - I don't throw a temper tantrum just because GW puts a clarification in the FAQ section and not the errata section when it clearly should have been in the errata section, as it changes rules.

The point is that an Errata changes the rule and all assumptions that we make from that rule change. An FAQ is very specific to a question and although you can choose to make assumptions from that clarification you are then defining a house rule from that.

The best example is the DE warriors to trueborn FAQ. That was a specific question for a specific formation. To use that as the definitive rule change for all other formations that use DE warriors is false and therefore you would make a house rule to allow your assumption.

 rawne2510 wrote:
The point is that an Errata changes the rule and all assumptions that we make from that rule change. An FAQ is very specific to a question and although you can choose to make assumptions from that clarification you are then defining a house rule from that.

The best example is the DE warriors to trueborn FAQ. That was a specific question for a specific formation. To use that as the definitive rule change for all other formations that use DE warriors is false and therefore you would make a house rule to allow your assumption.

Yes, however I'm not suggesting you should apply the "Chaptermaster in a Demi-Company" FAQ entry to all other formations and entries since that would clearly break a ton of formations and obviously wasn't intended at all - e.g. not being able to buy Apothecaries for your Command Squad (different model and all) or not being able to upgrade a Librarian to a level 2 Psyker.
I'm suggesting that the FAQ simply changes the rules for that specific scenario. Which a "FAQ" technically couldn't do, could it? So I treat it as an errata.

 rawne2510 wrote:
The point is that an Errata changes the rule and all assumptions that we make from that rule change. An FAQ is very specific to a question and although you can choose to make assumptions from that clarification you are then defining a house rule from that.

The best example is the DE warriors to trueborn FAQ. That was a specific question for a specific formation. To use that as the definitive rule change for all other formations that use DE warriors is false and therefore you would make a house rule to allow your assumption.

Except we've had that same calrification in the Fracture of Biel-Tan FAQ as well. The intent is pretty clear, it is an upgrade that changes the units battlefield role but does not change the unit itself.

The intent may be clear but you can´t just arbitrarily say that because FAQ question A says this it means I can do it for options B, C & D.

It the reason that there is ambiguity in that fact the person writing the FAQ for space marines said you can´t upgrade a captain but the DE writer said you could with warriors. It is inconsistent and that could be another issue that it is the interpretation of 2-3 writers rather than every question is evaluated by all the rules writers.

 rawne2510 wrote:
The intent may be clear but you can´t just arbitrarily say that because FAQ question A says this it means I can do it for options B, C & D.

It the reason that there is ambiguity in that fact the person writing the FAQ for space marines said you can´t upgrade a captain but the DE writer said you could with warriors. It is inconsistent and that could be another issue that it is the interpretation of 2-3 writers rather than every question is evaluated by all the rules writers.

Absolutely. You shouldn't apply a specific answer to any and all similar situations. The CM upgrade is an option just like a Powersword is. But the FAQ isn't trying to prevent you from choosing any other option.

Now, FAQs that talk about more generic concepts - e.g. how Warp Charges are calculated, how Blast Templates and Jink interacts or how Jink and Overwatch interact - those are generic answers.

All of those FAQ entries change the rules as written. They are errata. GW misclassified them.

This has gotten WAY off topic and I don't want to touch the little nit picky circular argument you've got going on here, but in answer to OP's second question, you can take a non named CM as part of the strike force command in the various gladius strike force options (fist of medusa ect).

nekooni wrote:What exactly are you arguing then? That we should ignore what GW labels as "FAQ" whenever we think it's not supported by the rules as written? That these FAQ entries are just suggested houserules by GW?

I treat these FAQ entries as errata that change the rules if necessary. It's because - as I said earlier - I don't throw a temper tantrum just because GW puts a clarification in the FAQ section and not the errata section when it clearly should have been in the errata section, as it changes rules.

I thought that has been clear. FAQs do not change the Rules As Written. They are House Rules, which means they are employed at the whim of the users instead of the foundation of the game. I do not agree with putting the same weight on the FAQ as the Errata because I do not consider House Rules as RAW, but HYWPI. I am just following that YMDC tenet #4.

It is recognizing that difference which is important. Anything else is calling piss on a leg as rain. If you went in to an LGS and you started up a game, but then they started using a set of House Rules you were unaware of, but called them RAW, how would you feel?

nekooni wrote:Absolutely. You shouldn't apply a specific answer to any and all similar situations. The CM upgrade is an option just like a Powersword is. But the FAQ isn't trying to prevent you from choosing any other option.

The CM upgrade is in the Options list like a Power Sword, but there the similarities end, and that difference is one reason one the reference to the Truborn is pointless.

The CM judgement is also based on another FAQ which used the Canoptek Harvest as an example. The question was a generic information request regarding detachments which do not list things as "unit of" but "1 x". The response was that this is listing the model. The Captain unit carries one of two possible models, Captain and Chapter Master. As soon as you upgrade the Captain model to the Chapter Master model, you are no longer using a Captain model, and not fulfilling the Detachment's list.

The Kabalite Warriors are listed as a unit, not as individual models. Therefore, any changes to the models are not affected by the Formation list. So referring to this is rather pointless.

And all of this is only if you consider the House Rule of Formations listing models and not units as having any weight.

nekooni wrote:All of those FAQ entries change the rules as written. They are errata. GW misclassified them.

They no more change the rules as written than any other House Rule. They are not errata. That is YOUR reclassification, not GWs. It is HYWPI, not RAW.

 Charistoph wrote:

nekooni wrote:What exactly are you arguing then? That we should ignore what GW labels as "FAQ" whenever we think it's not supported by the rules as written? That these FAQ entries are just suggested houserules by GW?

I treat these FAQ entries as errata that change the rules if necessary. It's because - as I said earlier - I don't throw a temper tantrum just because GW puts a clarification in the FAQ section and not the errata section when it clearly should have been in the errata section, as it changes rules.

I thought that has been clear. FAQs do not change the Rules As Written. They are House Rules, which means they are employed at the whim of the users instead of the foundation of the game. I do not agree with putting the same weight on the FAQ as the Errata because I do not consider House Rules as RAW, but HYWPI. I am just following that YMDC tenet #4.

It is recognizing that difference which is important. Anything else is calling piss on a leg as rain. If you went in to an LGS and you started up a game, but then they started using a set of House Rules you were unaware of, but called them RAW, how would you feel?

nekooni wrote:Absolutely. You shouldn't apply a specific answer to any and all similar situations. The CM upgrade is an option just like a Powersword is. But the FAQ isn't trying to prevent you from choosing any other option.

The CM upgrade is in the Options list like a Power Sword, but there the similarities end, and that difference is one reason one the reference to the Truborn is pointless.

The CM judgement is also based on another FAQ which used the Canoptek Harvest as an example. The question was a generic information request regarding detachments which do not list things as "unit of" but "1 x". The response was that this is listing the model. The Captain unit carries one of two possible models, Captain and Chapter Master. As soon as you upgrade the Captain model to the Chapter Master model, you are no longer using a Captain model, and not fulfilling the Detachment's list.

The Kabalite Warriors are listed as a unit, not as individual models. Therefore, any changes to the models are not affected by the Formation list. So referring to this is rather pointless.

And all of this is only if you consider the House Rule of Formations listing models and not units as having any weight.

nekooni wrote:All of those FAQ entries change the rules as written. They are errata. GW misclassified them.

They no more change the rules as written than any other House Rule. They are not errata. That is YOUR reclassification, not GWs. It is HYWPI, not RAW.

Wait... is your contention that GW's FAQs are somehow unofficial house rules? I'm trying to understand.

His contention is the FAQ section of the rules are GW's House Rules, based upon their definitions of the different sections of the errata from several editions ago. Currently they make the FAQ part sound like it's just answering questions about the current rules they've published without them using the FAQ section to change rules, but we've seen that that isn't true. But, there's no mention of the FAQ part now as being GW's House Rules, just answers to commonly asked questions about the rules.

It makes no practical difference whether they're actually GW "House rules" or just clarifications - they're treated by most people as having the same weight of rules law as the errata and amendment sections of the rules updates.

 Kriswall wrote:

Wait... is your contention that GW's FAQs are somehow unofficial house rules? I'm trying to understand.

No, FAQs are Official House Rules. I thought that was quite clear. They are answering question based on how they would play it. HTWPI is House Rules. I thought that was a standard tenet here.

If they were planning on changing the actual foundational rules, then erratas would have been implemented to correct some key behaviors. The most glaring things are like the consideration that a Detachment can list models when everything else says they list units, or that Battle Brothers cannot Embark during Employment. The rules that are the foundation of the game are not changed at all by these FAQs, as their language remains exactly the same within the book. If the book's language doesn't change, then these FAQs cannot be Rules As Written. It really is quite simple.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Wait... is your contention that GW's FAQs are somehow unofficial house rules? I'm trying to understand.

No, FAQs are Official House Rules. I thought that was quite clear. They are answering question based on how they would play it. HTWPI is House Rules. I thought that was a standard tenet here.

If they were planning on changing the actual foundational rules, then erratas would have been implemented to correct some key behaviors. The most glaring things are like the consideration that a Detachment can list models when everything else says they list units, or that Battle Brothers cannot Embark during Employment. The rules that are the foundation of the game are not changed at all by these FAQs, as their language remains exactly the same within the book. If the book's language doesn't change, then these FAQs cannot be Rules As Written. It really is quite simple.

Maybe I missed it. From every single current FAQ/Errata states the following:

Although we strive to ensure that our rules are perfect,
sometimes mistakes do creep in, or the intent of a rule
isn’t as clear as it might be. These documents collect
amendments to the rules and present our responses to
players’ frequently asked questions. As they’re updated
regularly, each has a version number; when changes
are made, the version number will be updated, and any
changes from the previous version will be highlighted
in magenta. Where a version number has a letter,
e.g. 1.1a, this means it has had a local update, only in
that language, to clarify a translation issue or other
minor correction.

I do not see a single mention of "house rules" in this blurb.

 Happyjew wrote:
I do not see a single mention of "house rules" in this blurb.

Of course you don't. You didn't follow the process I laid out.

FAQs are Official RAI.

The problem lies in that too many people are equating a FAQ that changes the rules should be an Errata. By definition, sure I can buy that. However, just because a FAQ goes against your own biased (and incorrect) interpretation of a rule does not make a FAQ suddenly mislabeled; rather you were simply wrong. For an FAQ do be erroneously labeled, the rule would have to lead all to come to the same inherent conclusion. Then if a FAQ went the other way, it would legitimately be an Errata in disguise. However, in the case of this ruling, plenty of people read the rules as written, and were able to apply the correct function of the rule as intended to the list building mechanic. Therefor the rule required a FAQ to address those that were reading it incorrectly. Again, just cause you were wrong doesn't mean you get to claim "well I was right until they re-wrote the rule", because that is not what happened.

 quickfuze wrote:
The problem lies in that too many people are equating a FAQ that changes the rules should be an Errata. By definition, sure I can buy that. However, just because a FAQ goes against your own biased (and incorrect) interpretation of a rule does not make a FAQ suddenly mislabeled; rather you were simply wrong. For an FAQ do be erroneously labeled, the rule would have to lead all to come to the same inherent conclusion. Then if a FAQ went the other way, it would legitimately be an Errata in disguise. However, in the case of this ruling, plenty of people read the rules as written, and were able to apply the correct function of the rule as intended to the list building mechanic. Therefor the rule required a FAQ to address those that were reading it incorrectly. Again, just cause you were wrong doesn't mean you get to claim "well I was right until they re-wrote the rule", because that is not what happened.

No, the Chapter Master case is one that went against the written rules, just as the denial of Battle Brothers to Embark in Transports during Deployment.

Every single reference for how detachments are built state that they request units and never mention models by name. The only time a model is mentioned is when it is encapsulated by the unit construct. With that in mind, why would one think that the listing of a unit would mean that it is actually referencing a specific model and not allow that model to be upgraded to a different version as allowed by its unit Options?

If you feel it is otherwise, please list the rules which present how all the detachments are listed, from the generic, to Formations, to the Gladius, and highlight all the mentions of the term "model".

 Charistoph wrote:

 quickfuze wrote:
The problem lies in that too many people are equating a FAQ that changes the rules should be an Errata. By definition, sure I can buy that. However, just because a FAQ goes against your own biased (and incorrect) interpretation of a rule does not make a FAQ suddenly mislabeled; rather you were simply wrong. For an FAQ do be erroneously labeled, the rule would have to lead all to come to the same inherent conclusion. Then if a FAQ went the other way, it would legitimately be an Errata in disguise. However, in the case of this ruling, plenty of people read the rules as written, and were able to apply the correct function of the rule as intended to the list building mechanic. Therefor the rule required a FAQ to address those that were reading it incorrectly. Again, just cause you were wrong doesn't mean you get to claim "well I was right until they re-wrote the rule", because that is not what happened.

No, the Chapter Master case is one that went against the written rules, just as the denial of Battle Brothers to Embark in Transports during Deployment.

Every single reference for how detachments are built state that they request units and never mention models by name. The only time a model is mentioned is when it is encapsulated by the unit construct. With that in mind, why would one think that the listing of a unit would mean that it is actually referencing a specific model and not allow that model to be upgraded to a different version as allowed by its unit Options?

If you feel it is otherwise, please list the rules which present how all the detachments are listed, from the generic, to Formations, to the Gladius, and highlight all the mentions of the term "model".

Official RAI (which the GW FAQ is) can go against RAW. The GW FAQ clarifies that '1 Captain' in the Gladius is officially intended to mean '1 Captain [model]' and not '[a unit of] 1 Captain'.

The GW FAQ is the official final answer as to what is RAI.

I see an faq as the way that specific sitiation is ment to be played and errata is global change that affects every sitiation

 Charistoph wrote:
I have never seen anyone, before this set of updates, consider an FAQ to actually rewrite the rules to correct errors. They have always been considerations on how GW plays it. In other words, their House Rules.

Except many of the GW's FAQ's actually rewrite rules. Like meltabomb thing, this chapter master thing etc. Those didn't clarify or answer questions but actually change how rules works.

If you consider FAQ as their house rules guess that means I can after all use melta bombs 1 per guy after all. That's just house rule! And chapter master? I disagree with their house rule, I play with chapter masters in formations. And I stick some ad mech troops into BA drop pods as well(that was under FAQ part too right?)

This thread is blowing my mind.

House rule = Unofficial Rule created by players(common understanding)
House ~= Unofficial
Official House Rule = Official Unofficial Rule

What does that even mean?

This is how things normally work...

#1 - GW writes an ambiguous rule.
#2 - Players are generally confused by the rule and ask a clarifying question.
#3 - GW answers the question via an FAQ, clarifying the rule for the players. No rules change happens. Things are just less ambiguous.

This is how GW sometimes does things...

#1 - GW writes an unambigous rule.
#2 - Players are generally NOT confused by the rule and DO NOT ask a clarifying question.
#3 - GW creates a question and answers it via FAQ with an answer that contradicts the unambiguous rule, thereby changing the rules as written.

The first scenario is generally considered an FAQ. The second scenario is generally considered an Errata. Neither scenario is a "GW House Rule". GW makes the rules. Sometimes they present optional rules, but generally whatever commentary they make can be considered a gold standard. The rules source doesn't make house rules.

What some I believe are saying that where GW answer a question to improve clarity is where people can choose to make house rules on as they dislike the GW intent of their written ambiguous rule which doesn´t get changed.

GW never make a question and answer that as an FAQ which is an errata. when GW write an errata there is no question involved.

 rawne2510 wrote:
What some I believe are saying that where GW answer a question to improve clarity is where people can choose to make house rules on as they dislike the GW intent of their written ambiguous rule which doesn´t get changed.

GW never make a question and answer that as an FAQ which is an errata. when GW write an errata there is no question involved.

GW frequently makes FAQs which modify unambigious rules. Changes to unambiguous rules are generally understood to be Erratas. Your assertion that GW never makes FAQs that are effectively Erratas is measurably false.

I've been reading people say that Official GW FAQs are a sort of GW 'house rule' that can be ignored at will since they're not really changing the rules as written. While true that literally any ruling can be ignored, FAQs/Erratas should be considered official, set in stone clarifications/modifications of the rules and should not be considered some sort of optional GW 'house rule'.

If GW says (through their FAQs) that 'this is how we play this situation and this is how we generally expect you to play this situation in standard games of Warhammer 40k', you have a rules clarification. If GW says (through any source) that 'this is an optional rule you can use if you want, but it's not mandatory', you have optional rules, which I guess could be considered a type of GW 'house rule'.

What I meant was when they answer a question and people don´t agree. The people can choose to change it as their house rule not GWs.

An FAQ is not an errata. Within their FAQ pdf releases there are usually 2 sections. Errata and separately FAQs

 rawne2510 wrote:
What I meant was when they answer a question and people don´t agree. The people can choose to change it as their house rule not GWs.

An FAQ is not an errata. Within their FAQ pdf releases there are usually 2 sections. Errata and separately FAQs

No... I get that FAQ and Errata are not the same word. I'm just saying (as are many other people) that GW is using Errata correctly and sometimes using FAQ incorrectly. FAQs should clarify ambiguous rules. FAQs should NOT provide answers that contradict unambiguous rules. GW frequently creates FAQs which provide answers that contradict unambiguous rules. They are effectively using an FAQ to CHANGE how an unambiguous rules is resolved.

I am pretty sure that all their current FAQs are player created. So someone out there considers it ambiguous or just plain out doesn´t understand the rule.

Take the new horrors rules and maelific discipline. Their new rules don´t allow them to take it yet someone had to ask the question (I don´t consider it an ambiguous rule) but because the question only answered with regards to pink it has now got people saying that blues can take it. Making it ambiguous.

For example: BB's may embark on each other's transports. This isn't confusing or unusual in any way. It's part of the main rule book and is stated clearly in black and white. Instead of changing the rules of a formation, (skyhammer) GW answers the question about adding IC's by declaring that BB's may NOT embark in each other's transports. This is an errata presented in the form of a FAQ. (and an endless source of headaches because the rest of the book is still written for the "old" BB use)

 MattKing wrote:
For example: BB's may embark on each other's transports. This isn't confusing or unusual in any way. It's part of the main rule book and is stated clearly in black and white. Instead of changing the rules of a formation, (skyhammer) GW answers the question about adding IC's by declaring that BB's may NOT embark in each other's transports. This is an errata presented in the form of a FAQ. (and an endless source of headaches because the rest of the book is still written for the "old" BB use)

True this was a badly effected reply. But it was meant to be to stop the ability for BB units to deploy in transports on their own eg. Culexus assassin from jumping into a drop pod. I don´t believe it was meant to kick units out of a dedicated transport just because a BB IC joined them.

 MattKing wrote:
For example: BB's may embark on each other's transports. This isn't confusing or unusual in any way. It's part of the main rule book and is stated clearly in black and white. Instead of changing the rules of a formation, (skyhammer) GW answers the question about adding IC's by declaring that BB's may NOT embark in each other's transports. This is an errata presented in the form of a FAQ. (and an endless source of headaches because the rest of the book is still written for the "old" BB use)

This is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. The community generally considered the 'deploying in a Battle Brother's Transport' rules to be unambiguous. The rules clearly and unambiguously allowed it. Sure, some people might have been confused, but generally speaking, these rules were unambiguous and not contested. Instead of issuing an Errata to change the text of the rules, GW just published a FAQ saying (I'm paraphrasing), "Am I allowed to deploy a unit/model in a Battle Brother's Transport? No."

Instead of issuing an Errata to change the core rules from "Do X" to "Don't do X", they issued an FAQ saying "Can I do X? No." That's a conflict. That's bad rules writing. That's why you don't use an FAQ to change core rules that didn't need clarification.

FAQ = used to clarify
Errata = used to change

GW is using FAQs to change rules. It's bad technical writing.

tneva82 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
I have never seen anyone, before this set of updates, consider an FAQ to actually rewrite the rules to correct errors. They have always been considerations on how GW plays it. In other words, their House Rules.

Except many of the GW's FAQ's actually rewrite rules. Like meltabomb thing, this chapter master thing etc. Those didn't clarify or answer questions but actually change how rules works.

If you consider FAQ as their house rules guess that means I can after all use melta bombs 1 per guy after all. That's just house rule! And chapter master? I disagree with their house rule, I play with chapter masters in formations. And I stick some ad mech troops into BA drop pods as well(that was under FAQ part too right?)

Apparently someone doesn't know what "before this set of updates" means. Those examples you gave were all from this set of updates. The closest before now was the Heldrake's angle of fire, and even that could be argued as the idea of a dragon head on a Vehicle really isn't covered in the rulebook, clarity is needed.

For another thing, I have made cases as to why the ruling that it is only 1 model in Assault can use Grenades is crap. It has to do with GW's own use of "throw" is only with Ranged Attack profiles and never with the Melee Attack profiles. I even recommended that they errata this section to cover this change on the FAQ feedback on Facebook page.

And yes, the Battle Brothers not being able to Embark Transports during Deployment is in the FAQ. If you note that nothing under Amendments and Errata ever mentions Battle Brothers. In the BRB, the Battle Brothers section specifically states as an example, that they can Embark on Transports and zero restrictions are mentioned.

Kriswall wrote:This thread is blowing my mind.

House rule = Unofficial Rule created by players(common understanding)
House ~= Unofficial
Official House Rule = Official Unofficial Rule

What does that even mean?

And now I see where the disconnect in our communication is.

I do not see the "House" in House Rule to mean "unofficial", I see it as "a rule to be used in this House". Tournament changes like the ITC rounds are considered House Rules. Are they unofficial? Not for the purposes of the Tournament being run. In that House of the Tournament, those rules are 100% official.

If I am playing in a GW tournament or in a GW store, I fully expect the GW FAQ to be in effect. If I am in my LGS which sells GW, but is not owned/operated by GW, then I will be working with them to find out how they prefer to play these ambiguities.

 Kriswall wrote:

 MattKing wrote:
For example: BB's may embark on each other's transports. This isn't confusing or unusual in any way. It's part of the main rule book and is stated clearly in black and white. Instead of changing the rules of a formation, (skyhammer) GW answers the question about adding IC's by declaring that BB's may NOT embark in each other's transports. This is an errata presented in the form of a FAQ. (and an endless source of headaches because the rest of the book is still written for the "old" BB use)

This is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. The community generally considered the 'deploying in a Battle Brother's Transport' rules to be unambiguous. The rules clearly and unambiguously allowed it. Sure, some people might have been confused, but generally speaking, these rules were unambiguous and not contested. Instead of issuing an Errata to change the text of the rules, GW just published a FAQ saying (I'm paraphrasing), "Am I allowed to deploy a unit/model in a Battle Brother's Transport? No."

Instead of issuing an Errata to change the core rules from "Do X" to "Don't do X", they issued an FAQ saying "Can I do X? No." That's a conflict. That's bad rules writing. That's why you don't use an FAQ to change core rules that didn't need clarification.

FAQ = used to clarify
Errata = used to change

GW is using FAQs to change rules. It's bad technical writing.

This one I agree with you about. The community wanted the rule to be changed and GW effected this poorly and went further than the community expected.

I think to GW, errata = FAQ. They're not exactly deep thinkers.

Martel732 wrote:
I think to GW, errata = FAQ. They're not exactly deep thinkers.

I think they're just really bad at technical writing in general. Their rules are not clear, concise or consistent in many places. This includes FAQs/Erratas.

 Kriswall wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I think to GW, errata = FAQ. They're not exactly deep thinkers.

I think they're just really bad at technical writing in general. Their rules are not clear, concise or consistent in many places. This includes FAQs/Erratas.

Basically. Now can we accept this and stop arguing?

 gnome_idea_what wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I think to GW, errata = FAQ. They're not exactly deep thinkers.

I think they're just really bad at technical writing in general. Their rules are not clear, concise or consistent in many places. This includes FAQs/Erratas.

Basically. Now can we accept this and stop arguing?

NEVER! Then what would we do in this subforum? Talk about rules in a calm and constructive way? Heresy. Report to your regimental Commissar for disciplinary action.

Martel732 wrote:
I think to GW, errata = FAQ. They're not exactly deep thinkers.

A conclusion brought on by desire, not by facts. That would be taking everything they said, ignoring it, and placing authority not provided in position.

 Charistoph wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I think to GW, errata = FAQ. They're not exactly deep thinkers.

A conclusion brought on by desire, not by facts. That would be taking everything they said, ignoring it, and placing authority not provided in position.

...or it could just be a conclusion brought on by observational evidence and critical thinking?

 Kriswall wrote:
...or it could just be a conclusion brought on by observational evidence and critical thinking?

Fact: GW has differentiated the two terms, and not associated them as being the same.
Fact: Other people have been conflating them to be the same.

The only result by observational evidence and critical thinking is that people are making a determination by their own desires. They want them as errata, so they treat them as errata. However, facts don't care about your feelings, they just are.

While, yes, they are atrocious technical writers, we shouldn't attribute something to what they have written that they haven't attributed to something they've written. I know the FAQs suggest we should do that, after all, so many different things that were answers are attributing things in ways that they never wrote, but seriously, that's taking it way to far.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
...or it could just be a conclusion brought on by observational evidence and critical thinking?

Fact: GW has differentiated the two terms, and not associated them as being the same.
Fact: Other people have been conflating them to be the same.

The only result by observational evidence and critical thinking is that people are making a determination by their own desires. They want them as errata, so they treat them as errata. However, facts don't care about your feelings, they just are.

While, yes, they are atrocious technical writers, we shouldn't attribute something to what they have written that they haven't attributed to something they've written. I know the FAQs suggest we should do that, after all, so many different things that were answers are attributing things in ways that they never wrote, but seriously, that's taking it way to far.

I really don't know why you've decided to draw a line in the sand on this and doggedly state that since GW labelled something as an FAQ (something that clarifies the rules) that it can't possibly be an Errata (something that changes the rules). More power to you though. You are, however, measurably wrong. Regardless of labelling, GW absolutely issues FAQs that do not clarify, but instead change rules widely considered to be unambiguous. The Battle Brothers Transport issue raised earlier is a perfect example.

 Kriswall wrote:
I really don't know why you've decided to draw a line in the sand on this and doggedly state that since GW labelled something as an FAQ (something that clarifies the rules) that it can't possibly be an Errata (something that changes the rules). More power to you though. You are, however, measurably wrong. Regardless of labelling, GW absolutely issues FAQs that do not clarify, but instead change rules widely considered to be unambiguous. The Battle Brothers Transport issue raised earlier is a perfect example.

I am not measurably wrong. People treating it as something GW haven't stated it is becomes measurably wrong. GW may be measurably wrong by using the wrong process to introduce the possibility of a change, but that doesn't change the actual measurable facts.

I don't know why people keep insisting something isn't what it states it is. I'm pretty reasonable, but to me, all this is lying to someone who may be new and reading this for the first time. It's pissing on the leg and calling it rain. Why should I find that acceptable any more than trying to pass Tyranids off as Space Marines?

The GW FAQ reveals official RAI (ie what the rules are officially supposed to do).

In some cases the GW FAQ issues errata to rewrite the RAW but in other cases the GW FAQ pithily uses a 'Q and A' FAQ format to reveal the RAI.

It does not matter in either case if the official RAI contradicts the RAW. In either case, the GW FAQ presents the official RAI which changes officially how to play the game.

If you don't adhere to the RAI presented in the GW FAQ, you are deviating from the official game and are playing by House Rules.

A person who adheres to the RAI presented in the GW FAQ is playing the game in the manner officially endorsed and supported by GW.

 Charistoph wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
I have never seen anyone, before this set of updates, consider an FAQ to actually rewrite the rules to correct errors. They have always been considerations on how GW plays it. In other words, their House Rules.

Except many of the GW's FAQ's actually rewrite rules. Like meltabomb thing, this chapter master thing etc. Those didn't clarify or answer questions but actually change how rules works.

If you consider FAQ as their house rules guess that means I can after all use melta bombs 1 per guy after all. That's just house rule! And chapter master? I disagree with their house rule, I play with chapter masters in formations. And I stick some ad mech troops into BA drop pods as well(that was under FAQ part too right?)

Apparently someone doesn't know what "before this set of updates" means. Those examples you gave were all from this set of updates. The closest before now was the Heldrake's angle of fire, and even that could be argued as the idea of a dragon head on a Vehicle really isn't covered in the rulebook, clarity is needed.
.

Before this set. Tyranid Prime ( an IC ) could not join unit in a drop pod.

Fragile wrote:
Before this set. Tyranid Prime ( an IC ) could not join unit in a drop pod.

Still can't. They are Come The Apocalypse which treats all units as enemies. So, unless you can provide evidence that I can have my units Embark in to YOUR Transports, I'd say that is a total wash.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
I really don't know why you've decided to draw a line in the sand on this and doggedly state that since GW labelled something as an FAQ (something that clarifies the rules) that it can't possibly be an Errata (something that changes the rules). More power to you though. You are, however, measurably wrong. Regardless of labelling, GW absolutely issues FAQs that do not clarify, but instead change rules widely considered to be unambiguous. The Battle Brothers Transport issue raised earlier is a perfect example.

I am not measurably wrong. People treating it as something GW haven't stated it is becomes measurably wrong. GW may be measurably wrong by using the wrong process to introduce the possibility of a change, but that doesn't change the actual measurable facts.

I don't know why people keep insisting something isn't what it states it is. I'm pretty reasonable, but to me, all this is lying to someone who may be new and reading this for the first time. It's pissing on the leg and calling it rain. Why should I find that acceptable any more than trying to pass Tyranids off as Space Marines?

I think you're probably too committed to your interpretation to really understand what I'm saying.

I also don't think letting a new player know that some of GW's FAQs (commonly understood to be used for clarification of ambiguous situations) are being used to change unambiguous rules is a bad thing. In fact, it's probably a good thing to let new players know that GW's rules are not always clear, concise or consistent and that they sometimes mislabel erratas as FAQs. A new player might otherwise read a clear, unambiguous rule, have no reason to check the FAQ (due to having no question as to how the rule works) and then be shocked during a game to find that the rule is played in a completely different way despite no errata existing to change the clear, unambiguous wording. That's the sort of thing that can frustrate a new player.

GW may be one of the largest players in the miniature gaming market (sitting at #2 after FFG right now, Go X-Wing!), but their rules writing ability is worse than most.

If it is clear an unambiguous then they wouldn´t be checking the errata either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
No matter how any rule reads everyone should have with them or at least read all the FAQ/Errata documents published for the armies they use (that includes the BRB).

 rawne2510 wrote:
If it is clear an unambiguous then they wouldn´t be checking the errata either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
No matter how any rule reads everyone should have with them or at least read all the FAQ/Errata documents published for the armies they use (that includes the BRB).

I disagree with your first statement. Erratas frequently affect changes to unambiguous rules. Erratas can be issued for balance reasons, etc. that have nothing to do with ambiguity.

And yes, I do agree to your second statement.

You said that if the rule was clear then a person wouldn´t look in an FAQ for any changes. The same could be said of checking the errata


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So at this point it wouldn´t matter if the FAQ´d it or errata´d it. The person still wouldn´t check

 rawne2510 wrote:
You said that if the rule was clear then a person wouldn´t look in an FAQ for any changes. The same could be said of checking the errata


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So at this point it wouldn´t matter if the FAQ´d it or errata´d it. The person still wouldn´t check

I don't think the same could be said for Erratas. Erratas change rules, so everyone should read every Errata. FAQs clear up ambiguous situations. If the rules seem straightforward, most people don't bother looking for an FAQ.

 Charistoph wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Before this set. Tyranid Prime ( an IC ) could not join unit in a drop pod.

Still can't. They are Come The Apocalypse which treats all units as enemies. So, unless you can provide evidence that I can have my units Embark in to YOUR Transports, I'd say that is a total wash.

What are you talking about? They are not CTA with themselves. WHAT?

Q: If a Tyranid unit takes a Mycetic Spore, can an Independent Character join the brood before deployment (and hence deep strike in with the brood)? (pg54)
A: No.

Your consistently proven wrong Charistoph.

Fragile wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Before this set. Tyranid Prime ( an IC ) could not join unit in a drop pod.

Still can't. They are Come The Apocalypse which treats all units as enemies. So, unless you can provide evidence that I can have my units Embark in to YOUR Transports, I'd say that is a total wash.

What are you talking about? They are not CTA with themselves. WHAT?

Q: If a Tyranid unit takes a Mycetic Spore, can an Independent Character join the brood before deployment (and hence deep strike in with the brood)? (pg54)
A: No.

Your consistently proven wrong Charistoph.

Your first message in that quote says "Drop Pod", which is for Space Marines, not a Tyrannocyte, which is for Tyranids. Charistoph took your wording literally, and probably didn't realize that you meant the Tyrannocyte, which is commonly called the Tyranid Drop Pod.

Ok, fair point Yarium. He may not have played with Tyranid when Spores were around.

 Kriswall wrote:

 rawne2510 wrote:
You said that if the rule was clear then a person wouldn´t look in an FAQ for any changes. The same could be said of checking the errata


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So at this point it wouldn´t matter if the FAQ´d it or errata´d it. The person still wouldn´t check

I don't think the same could be said for Erratas. Erratas change rules, so everyone should read every Errata. FAQs clear up ambiguous situations. If the rules seem straightforward, most people don't bother looking for an FAQ.

They are in the same document. If you are checking one then you are checking both.

 rawne2510 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 rawne2510 wrote:
You said that if the rule was clear then a person wouldn´t look in an FAQ for any changes. The same could be said of checking the errata


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So at this point it wouldn´t matter if the FAQ´d it or errata´d it. The person still wouldn´t check

I don't think the same could be said for Erratas. Erratas change rules, so everyone should read every Errata. FAQs clear up ambiguous situations. If the rules seem straightforward, most people don't bother looking for an FAQ.

They are in the same document. If you are checking one then you are checking both.

Not necessarily true.

Ok so you read the first 4 paragraphs on erratas and never bother reading the rest of the document!!!

If that is the case no wonder you have issues.

Fragile wrote:Ok, fair point Yarium. He may not have played with Tyranid when Spores were around.

"Drop pod" without a qualifier (such as "their" or "Tyranid") indicates the actual unit of Drop Pod used by certain Armies of the Imperium. You also got the name wrong, so don't go throwing stones on that account.

rawne2510 wrote:Ok so you read the first 4 paragraphs on erratas and never bother reading the rest of the document!!!

If that is the case no wonder you have issues.

Many people just quick read the FAQs unless they are looking for something specific. Unless they heard it from someone else or they are deliberately trying to stop space marines from Embarking on to Drop Pods (from another codex), most wouldn't think to look for things like Battle Brothers and Transports.

So, too, which I have stated before, if you consider the standards established in the BRB and every single codex and supplement that these detachment lists are providing lists of units, why would you think to ever look for a question on if it is asking for just the Captain model?

 rawne2510 wrote:
Ok so you read the first 4 paragraphs on erratas and never bother reading the rest of the document!!!

If that is the case no wonder you have issues.

I don't have issues. I typically read the entire document. Not everyone does. Not everyone should have to. If a rule is completely unambiguous, a reasonable person would check the Erratas to make sure nothing has changed. A reasonable person would not necessarily think to check the FAQs as FAQs are not usually intended to change unambiguous rules. GW should stick to keeping rules changes in the Errata section.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:
So, too, which I have stated before, if you consider the standards established in the BRB and every single codex and supplement that these detachment lists are providing lists of units, why would you think to ever look for a question on if it is asking for just the Captain model?

Exactly my point. An average, reasonable player would check the Errata section, but might not think to check the FAQ section for rules changes. This particular FAQ should really have been presented as an Errata to the Formation description page.

 Kriswall wrote:
Exactly my point. An average, reasonable player would check the Errata section, but might not think to check the FAQ section for rules changes. This particular FAQ should really have been presented as an Errata to the Formation description page.

Or better yet, place Errata the Restrictions of the Formations in question. That way, they don't mess with the standards they have established and keep things to the specific detachment in question.

If the units are fundamentally different and occupy different org slots they should have a separate entry in the codex.

In my view this is a rule change not a clarification.

An average reasonable person having read GW''s rules and played a few games would realise that GW suck at writing and so would read everything.

I fail to see why there is an argument on this thread

Faq-this is how GW want you to play it - OK it contradicts itself OK it makes rulings that probably apply to blood angels in the sm faq (if you want to complain about anything needing to check another codexs faq-I'm looking at you drop pod doors) OK a blind monkey at a typewriter could do a better job of defining things but it is how they want you to play it it is official if your complaining about rulings you've read it

Errata yes many faq rulings could be deemed erratta because there is a fine line between GW changing the rules and gw's writing being so bad that noone playing the game knew what they meant so we all just did what they wrote instead of intended to write

Finnally there are many people who admittedly need to learn to read and complain about faq making changes when it didn't looking at you multi grenaders. However there were plenty of rulings that do deviate from what was written to what was intended this doesn't mean people were wrong on either side of an argument the argument was often there because there was a lack of clarity. Well now there is that's a good thing and gw have made a choice

However whether you label it errata or faq it is an official ruling if your reading this post you know that

Finnally a house rule is a rule you create at home it is never official and may not be followed in different areas. Faq and errata are intended to be they are different

U02dah4 wrote:
Finnally a house rule is a rule you create at home it is never official and may not be followed in different areas. Faq and errata are intended to be they are different

So tournament rules are not official. Got it. I'm sure that will go over well at the next tournament you play.

They're not official, just mandatory
Not an authority or public body.
( GW are the authority, and haven't yet delegated that authority)

nosferatu1001 wrote:
They're not official, just mandatory
Not an authority or public body.
( GW are the authority, and haven't yet delegated that authority)

Hmm... Yeah, you try that and see how long you last at a tournament.

Authority is based on whose house you are playing in. NFL rules are official in NFL games, but not in NCAA games or in high school games, much less the games in the park.

GW has delegated tournament authority by not stating any authority over tournaments nor enforcing authority over tournaments. GW won't come in and confiscate your toy soldiers for playing them "wrong".

Tournament organizers hold authority over their tournaments. That makes their House Rules official. If they weren't, they would not be mandatory as there would be nothing to enforce their use.

Tournaments make house rules that are valid for that tournament. If you enter the tournament you agree to abide by those house rules. These are not official rules and the clue is you go to a tournament elsewhere and you get shock different rules.

 Charistoph wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
They're not official, just mandatory
Not an authority or public body.
( GW are the authority, and haven't yet delegated that authority)

Hmm... Yeah, you try that and see how long you last at a tournament.

Authority is based on whose house you are playing in. NFL rules are official in NFL games, but not in NCAA games or in high school games, much less the games in the park.

GW has delegated tournament authority by not stating any authority over tournaments nor enforcing authority over tournaments. GW won't come in and confiscate your toy soldiers for playing them "wrong".

Tournament organizers hold authority over their tournaments. That makes their House Rules official. If they weren't, they would not be mandatory as there would be nothing to enforce their use.

Next time you come to one of my tournament with house rules from one of your tournaments and see how long you last there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Uo2dah4 is saying that the house rules for a tournament are in no way official in anything but that tournament. I am pretty sure there are events that state they will use current ITC FAQs with the following changes.

If someone wants to allow invisibility to work as per the BRB then they can state within an ITC tournament FAQ they will ignore the changes to invis. They can choose to do that as it is their tournament.

Absolutely ITC and ETC are sets of house rules that are commonly used. If I go to an ITC tournament I agree to play by those rules. However if the tournamental organiser wishes to modify them by say banning superheavys they can. Also the next I go to might not be ITC.

U02dah4 wrote:Tournaments make house rules that are valid for that tournament. If you enter the tournament you agree to abide by those house rules. These are not official rules and the clue is you go to a tournament elsewhere and you get shock different rules.

Those rules are official for that tournament, yes or no?

If you consider those rules not official, what happens?

Definition of official:
1 Relating to an authority or public body and its activities and responsibilities.
1.1 Having the approval or authorization of an authority or public body.
1.2 Employed by an authority or public body in a position of authority.

Do Tournament Organizers have authority within their tournament, yes or no?

rawne2510 wrote:Next time you come to one of my tournament with house rules from one of your tournaments and see how long you last there.

Exactly my point. Thank you for demonstrating it.

rawne2510 wrote:Uo2dah4 is saying that the house rules for a tournament are in no way official in anything but that tournament. I am pretty sure there are events that state they will use current ITC FAQs with the following changes.

If someone wants to allow invisibility to work as per the BRB then they can state within an ITC tournament FAQ they will ignore the changes to invis. They can choose to do that as it is their tournament.

Very true, and to my point. Game organizers have final authority on what is applied to their games. For those games, they are official. It may not extend beyond that game, but that doesn't mean they lose any weight during the game by doing so.

U02dah4 wrote:Absolutely ITC and ETC are sets of house rules that are commonly used. If I go to an ITC tournament I agree to play by those rules. However if the tournamental organiser wishes to modify them by say banning superheavys they can. Also the next I go to might not be ITC.

Exactly. For those tournaments, those House Rules are official.

FIFA, NFL, MLB, and NBA all have their official rules, and if someone comes from the NCAA and tries to play in a FIFA/NFL/MLB/NBA game using NCAA rules, they will either run in to a foul or be self-limiting.

So, too, in an NCAA game NCAA rules are official, and someone coming in and trying to run with FIFA/NFL/MLB/NBA rules will almost definitely run in to fouls to the point of being ejected.

"Official" depends on the circumstances you are operating under. If you are operating under a GW event, you play by GW's full ruleset and their FAQs. If you are operating under an ITC event, then you are playing under their rules and FAQ, because you are operating under their authority.

 Charistoph wrote:

"Official" depends on the circumstances you are operating under. If you are operating under a GW event, you play by GW's full ruleset and their FAQs. If you are operating under an ITC event, then you are playing under their rules and FAQ, because you are operating under their authority.

Official rules means the rules officially endorsed by the producer of the game. Sure you can take the word and interpret it out of context, but the result is pretty stupid:

When I play at home my house rules aren't house rules but official rules since I'm operating under my own authority.

The very thing that the words "House Rule" means is that "these rules are specific to this house". So they're the rules that the owner of the house laid down. The ITC rules are a prime example of that. Others might choose to adapt the same house rules for their house - or not.

nekooni wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

"Official" depends on the circumstances you are operating under. If you are operating under a GW event, you play by GW's full ruleset and their FAQs. If you are operating under an ITC event, then you are playing under their rules and FAQ, because you are operating under their authority.

Official rules means the rules officially endorsed by the producer of the game. Sure you can take the word and interpret it out of context, but the result is pretty stupid:

When I play at home my house rules aren't house rules but official rules since I'm operating under my own authority.

The very thing that the words "House Rule" means is that "these rules are specific to this house". So they're the rules that the owner of the house laid down. The ITC rules are a prime example of that. Others might choose to adapt the same house rules for their house - or not.

Pretty much this.

nekooni wrote:
Official rules means the rules officially endorsed by the producer of the game. Sure you can take the word and interpret it out of context, but the result is pretty stupid:

Nothing was taken out of context. The organizers of the game get to determine what is official for that game. To say that a tournament's rules are not official is to not acknowledge the tournament's authority.

nekooni wrote:
The very thing that the words "House Rule" means is that "these rules are specific to this house". So they're the rules that the owner of the house laid down. The ITC rules are a prime example of that. Others might choose to adapt the same house rules for their house - or not.

Which is something I stated. It doesn't make them any less official. The owner of the house is the authority, therefore that makes it official. This isn't a huge leap in logic, just acknowledging where the authority lies.

 Charistoph wrote:

nekooni wrote:
Official rules means the rules officially endorsed by the producer of the game. Sure you can take the word and interpret it out of context, but the result is pretty stupid:

Nothing was taken out of context. The organizers of the game get to determine what is official for that game. To say that a tournament's rules are not official is to not acknowledge the tournament's authority.

nekooni wrote:
The very thing that the words "House Rule" means is that "these rules are specific to this house". So they're the rules that the owner of the house laid down. The ITC rules are a prime example of that. Others might choose to adapt the same house rules for their house - or not.

Which is something I stated. It doesn't make them any less official. The owner of the house is the authority, therefore that makes it official. This isn't a huge leap in logic, just acknowledging where the authority lies.

Most people consider GW to be the only real authority in terms of whether or not a rule is official. EVERYONE else, from little Jimmy who plays with his friend to groups like ITC are creating house rules that are unofficial, but might be required if you want to play in their house (or store or event hall or whatever).

Official is not the same as unofficial, but mandatory if you want to play at a specific location/event or with a specific person. I think you're getting a lot of push back because house rules are almost universally considered to by unofficial, regardless of context.

 Kriswall wrote:
Most people consider GW to be the only real authority in terms of whether or not a rule is official. EVERYONE else, from little Jimmy who plays with his friend to groups like ITC are creating house rules that are unofficial, but might be required if you want to play in their house (or store or event hall or whatever).

Which makes it official in their house. They have the authority in their house. By not recognizing it as official there, you are saying they have no authority to be making those rules. Go ahead and tell a TO that their rules do not matter and see how long you will be playing in "their house".

 Kriswall wrote:
Official is not the same as unofficial, but mandatory if you want to play at a specific location/event or with a specific person. I think you're getting a lot of push back because house rules are almost universally considered to by unofficial, regardless of context.

That's their choice to consider things out of context. It happens all the time. GW literally called FAQs as their House Rules for years. Did this reduce their officiality by doing so? If so, why?

Recognizing something as official is about recognizing authority. House Rules are not about going against another authority, but recognizing the authority of the local situation.

You changed your use of a term, and it is not recognized globally, and you are pushing back against people who do not recognize your authority to make the change in slang nor change the statements from the rules-producing company.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Most people consider GW to be the only real authority in terms of whether or not a rule is official. EVERYONE else, from little Jimmy who plays with his friend to groups like ITC are creating house rules that are unofficial, but might be required if you want to play in their house (or store or event hall or whatever).

Which makes it official in their house. They have the authority in their house. By not recognizing it as official there, you are saying they have no authority to be making those rules. Go ahead and tell a TO that their rules do not matter and see how long you will be playing in "their house".

So there's literally no reason to have the phrases "official rules" and "house rules", since house rules are always official in the house that issued them.

As I said - sure you can take the word "official"out of context and interpret it on their own, just like you could take the word catfish and only look at the parts of it. It clearly has to be a feline type of fish then, doesn't it? All cowboys must be bovine variants of young male humans?

I mean, we could just define a virtual house of "this is the game of 40k", acknowledge that the owner and sole authority of that "house" is GW and treat all the rules they provided us as official and all the other rules that were provided by other sources as house rules, but then we'd end up with functionally the same interpretation as everyone else, but meh. That's boring.

nekooni wrote:
So there's literally no reason to have the phrases "official rules" and "house rules", since house rules are always official in the house that issued them.

As I said - sure you can take the word "official"out of context and interpret it on their own, just like you could take the word catfish and only look at the parts of it. It clearly has to be a feline type of fish then, doesn't it? All cowboys must be bovine variants of young male humans?

I mean, we could just define a virtual house of "this is the game of 40k", acknowledge that the owner and sole authority of that "house" is GW and treat all the rules they provided us as official and all the other rules that were provided by other sources as house rules, but then we'd end up with functionally the same interpretation as everyone else, but meh. That's boring.

That's your choice. But you point out the reason I have been sticking to "base rules", "codex rules", "FAQ", and such, lately. FAQs are not rules until you choose to give them the weight of rules. GW does not acknowledge them as rules, nor have they changed the written word of the rules. Tournament rules do not mean anything if you are not playing in a tournament. But as soon as you start playing in that tournament, you are recognizing their authority, and so they become official.

If you think they change the written word of the rules, which line does it state it replaces by the Battle Brothers not being able to Embark Transports?

Charistoph is right sort of.

In the FAQ in the frequently asked quetions section (p12 main rule book) it says that battle brothers cannot start in each others transports.

I can't find the bit where they say that FAQ is more their house rules and do not have the same status as books,amendements, and errata's I'm certain I read it somewhere recently. So untill I do, they have?

That being said. It is a GW publication and this stops a lot of shennanigans so I am going to use it whenever possible. even if it is terrible for howling banshees.

My conclusion was from GW being morons. Not desire. The entire studio might have three brain cells between them.

"Fact: GW has differentiated the two terms, and not associated them as being the same. "

GW can't put two sentences together without needing clarification and has the math skills of a planarian. I don't give a feth what they differentiate and what they associate. They are idiots, and I don't trust them to add 2+2, much less successfully differentiate these two terms. You call it fact, but since GW is involved, I don't trust it or believe it. My only wish in this matter is that I could make someone at GW feel bad.

Earth127 wrote:
Charistoph is right sort of.

In the FAQ in the frequently asked quetions section (p12 main rule book) it says that battle brothers cannot start in each others transports.

I can't find the bit where they say that FAQ is more their house rules and do not have the same status as books,amendements, and errata's I'm certain I read it somewhere recently. So untill I do, they have?

That being said. It is a GW publication and this stops a lot of shennanigans so I am going to use it whenever possible. even if it is terrible for howling banshees.

But can you find where they do say the the FAQ is their house rules? All they say in the document itself is "The Frequently Asked Questions (or 'FAQ') section answers commonly aksed questions about the rules." That doesn't say that they're GW's house rules, or that they treated as being lesser than either of the other two sections in the rules update.

Martel732 wrote:
My conclusion was from GW being morons. Not desire. The entire studio might have three brain cells between them.

"Fact: GW has differentiated the two terms, and not associated them as being the same. "

GW can't put two sentences together without needing clarification and has the math skills of a planarian. I don't give a feth what they differentiate and what they associate. They are idiots, and I don't trust them to add 2+2, much less successfully differentiate these two terms. You call it fact, but since GW is involved, I don't trust it or believe it. My only wish in this matter is that I could make someone at GW feel bad.

Then you are conflating 'fact' and 'truth'. A fact exists on its own outside of your perception, and is consistent. A truth exists based on your perceptions. For example, it would be a fact that someone plays a rule wrong. The truth of if he is a cheater or forgetful will be dependent on perception. To put it another way, but Harrison Ford playing Henry 'Indiana' Jones, Jr, "Archaeology is the search for fact... not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall."

It is a fact that GW has differentiated the terms. The truth is that they suck at rule writing. This doesn't change what GW has done, but how we perceive the effectiveness at what GW has done. This then puts everything you said in the realm of RAI/HYWPI, and not RAW. So long as you recognize the difference, I have little to say against it, other than try to argue some sense from my perception of truth.

Here's a follow up question, if you cannot trust their noted difference between FAQ and Errata, why do you trust anything in the FAQ? Or the Eratta, for that matter?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:
But can you find where they do say the the FAQ is their house rules? All they say in the document itself is "The Frequently Asked Questions (or 'FAQ') section answers commonly aksed questions about the rules." That doesn't say that they're GW's house rules, or that they treated as being lesser than either of the other two sections in the rules update.

I've already explained why from my perspective. Can you find where they say FAQs are Errata?

" why do you trust anything in the FAQ? Or the Eratta, for that matter?"

I don't. But other people listen to them, and not to me.

 Charistoph wrote:
[quote=Martel732 720249 9262914 null
It is a fact that GW has differentiated the terms. The truth is that they suck at rule writing. This doesn't change what GW has done, but how we perceive the effectiveness at what GW has done. This then puts everything you said in the realm of RAI/HYWPI, and not RAW. So long as you recognize the difference, I have little to say against it, other than try to argue some sense from my perception of truth.

Here's a follow up question, if you cannot trust their noted difference between FAQ and Errata, why do you trust anything in the FAQ? Or the Eratta, for that matter?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:
But can you find where they do say the the FAQ is their house rules? All they say in the document itself is "The Frequently Asked Questions (or 'FAQ') section answers commonly aksed questions about the rules." That doesn't say that they're GW's house rules, or that they treated as being lesser than either of the other two sections in the rules update.

I've already explained why from my perspective. Can you find where they say FAQs are Errata?

Why would I expect to? They state errata as correcting mistakes in the book, while they say the FAQ part answers commonly answers questions about the rules. The implication is that the rules are the same for what they're dealing with in the FAQ, it's just that if you don't believe it you just haven't been reading the rules right.

Charistoph - hence mandatory, not official
The authority when it comes to 40k is GW. That is not arguable. They may have been negligent and not created a scheme of delegation, but that does not imply a delegation to $TO exists,

However it is a condition of entry and play that you follow their mandatory rules, over an above those described in the rulebook - including a set points limit not agreed between the two players.

Hence mandatory and not official. A tournaments rules are thief mandatory, UNofficial rules.

 Charistoph wrote:
why do you trust anything in the FAQ? Or the Eratta, for that matter?

Then what is anybody doing here?

The end point of this argument seems to be that these supporting documents are optional. If you think this, what's the point in discussing at all? You'll just play it the way you wanted to anyways.

Some who play 40k are only interested in the rules GW makes, and what's in discussion here is their rules. Arguing the legitimacy of the document is beside the point, as is arguing the quality of those rules.

doctortom wrote:Why would I expect to? They state errata as correcting mistakes in the book, while they say the FAQ part answers commonly answers questions about the rules. The implication is that the rules are the same for what they're dealing with in the FAQ, it's just that if you don't believe it you just haven't been reading the rules right.

Because you have stated they ARE errata. That's why you should expect to. You made the claim, I demonstrated that it is not supported by the facts, but you continue to state it as such.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Charistoph - hence mandatory, not official
The authority when it comes to 40k is GW. That is not arguable. They may have been negligent and not created a scheme of delegation, but that does not imply a delegation to $TO exists,

However it is a condition of entry and play that you follow their mandatory rules, over an above those described in the rulebook - including a set points limit not agreed between the two players.

Hence mandatory and not official. A tournaments rules are thief mandatory, UNofficial rules.

So a tournament organizer has no authority. Try that out at your next tournament, and see how far you get. For something to be unofficial, it has to have no authority. Tournaments have the authority in their tournament. Therefore, their rules are official for that tournament.

Jambles wrote:The end point of this argument seems to be that these supporting documents are optional. If you think this, what's the point in discussing at all? You'll just play it the way you wanted to anyways.

So people do not get caught up in how 'hard' the FAQs are, especially when someone who is not part of their local group comes in to play a game. It's even more important when the FAQs are trying to do the job of an Errata, but don't actually do the job. The Written rule stays the same and has not been changed, officially.

Jambles wrote:Some who play 40k are only interested in the rules GW makes, and what's in discussion here is their rules. Arguing the legitimacy of the document is beside the point, as is arguing the quality of those rules.

Right, what is in discussion here is their rules. But the FAQs are House Rules per the definitions of same, and previous definition of their own making. This is not a question of 'legitimacy'. That is a construct manufactured by conflating "house" with "unofficial".

Again, no. You are misapplying authority and official, and not using mandatory when you should be. Stop dropping what I am saying - I am not saying don't follow the tos mandatory rules, because they are not official. Excluding the middle fallacy

I am saying you have to follow the rules, because they are mandatory. Their status as unofficial is utterly irrelevant.

The official rules for 40k are decided by th e40k authority. The 40k authority is GW AND anyone they have delegated that authority to, and no one else

Look up,schemes of delegation, as this is a key concept you either don't understand, or are wilfully misapplying.

 Charistoph wrote:

Jambles wrote:The end point of this argument seems to be that these supporting documents are optional. If you think this, what's the point in discussing at all? You'll just play it the way you wanted to anyways.

So people do not get caught up in how 'hard' the FAQs are, especially when someone who is not part of their local group comes in to play a game. It's even more important when the FAQs are trying to do the job of an Errata, but don't actually do the job. The Written rule stays the same and has not been changed, officially.

I suppose I can't speak to all local gaming scenes, but just going by the one's I've been involved in, the FAQs and Errata that Games Workshop released were definitely considered to be in effect.

If you walked into my local gaming hole with the idea that the FAQs aren't 'hard', as you say, you just won't find an opponent to play with you. Nobody wants to argue whether or not you can use battle brother transports or multiple melee grenades anymore, not when it's already been resolved by GW.

To think this all started because I needed to know if it was true that smashface was legal in my friend's demi-company.

It's like watching your child grow to become president of the US.

Jokes aside. At this point the thread should be locked. my question was answered. My opponent was enlightened, we've moved on and so should the rest of you.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, no. You are misapplying authority and official, and not using mandatory when you should be. Stop dropping what I am saying - I am not saying don't follow the tos mandatory rules, because they are not official. Excluding the middle fallacy

You are the one who is misapplying what is being said. Do you know what "official" means? It is tied to authority for everything but Pharmacology. If you are using something different, do not blame me. You also do not seem to understand what "mandatory" means. It is as tied to authority as much as "official" is.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I am saying you have to follow the rules, because they are mandatory. Their status as unofficial is utterly irrelevant.

The official rules for 40k are decided by th e40k authority. The 40k authority is GW AND anyone they have delegated that authority to, and no one else

Look up,schemes of delegation, as this is a key concept you either don't understand, or are wilfully misapplying.

Actually, I have never heard of "Scheme of Delegation" before now. Hard to misapply something you never heard of.

But you seem to misunderstand what I've been saying because you have been applying different definitions to the terms you have been using.

There is no law prohibiting free speech, and it is against the law for the Government, an official authority in lawmaking, to pass a law which goes against this amendment.

Do you say that your workplace has a law against free speech, or do you say there are policies and rules which restrict what you can say?

You give up certain rights in the workplace because they are company policies, not because the company is implementing laws of its own.

 Marmatag wrote:
There is no law prohibiting free speech, and it is against the law for the Government, an official authority in lawmaking, to pass a law which goes against this amendment.

Actually, that depends on the country. In the US, there are laws prohibiting free speech deemed valid through the process laid out in the courts per the constitution, even though the freedom of speech or the press shall not be infringed. The reason for this is because some free speech can actually be called "inciting to riot", and it is against citizen safety.

But comparing this to 40K is improper because GW is not a government. GW has no enforceable authority, just the authority we give them. Oddly enough, this is actually less authority than a tournament which has enforceable authority such as denying you a place in the game or even prizes.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
There is no law prohibiting free speech, and it is against the law for the Government, an official authority in lawmaking, to pass a law which goes against this amendment.

Actually, that depends on the country. In the US, there are laws prohibiting free speech deemed valid through the process laid out in the courts per the constitution, even though the freedom of speech or the press shall not be infringed. The reason for this is because some free speech can actually be called "inciting to riot", and it is against citizen safety.

But comparing this to 40K is improper because GW is not a government. GW has no enforceable authority, just the authority we give them. Oddly enough, this is actually less authority than a tournament which has enforceable authority such as denying you a place in the game or even prizes.

So, by having no enforceable authority, going by your definitions none of GW's rules are official?

 doctortom wrote:
So, by having no enforceable authority, going by your definitions none of GW's rules are official?

Being official requires authority. The line was that House Rules like tournaments are mandatory, but not official. The problem being that being mandatory or official requires authority.

House Rules are not about authority, but I have been over that already.

 Charistoph wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
So, by having no enforceable authority, going by your definitions none of GW's rules are official?

Being official requires authority. The line was that House Rules like tournaments are mandatory, but not official. The problem being that being mandatory or official requires authority.

House Rules are not about authority, but I have been over that already.

But you also just said " GW has no enforceable authority", which would mean that without the authority GW's rules aren't official, no?

 doctortom wrote:
But you also just said " GW has no enforceable authority", which would mean that without the authority GW's rules aren't official, no?

As I also said, they only have the authority we choose to give them outside of any other authority.

 doctortom wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
So, by having no enforceable authority, going by your definitions none of GW's rules are official?

Being official requires authority. The line was that House Rules like tournaments are mandatory, but not official. The problem being that being mandatory or official requires authority.

House Rules are not about authority, but I have been over that already.

But you also just said " GW has no enforceable authority", which would mean that without the authority GW's rules aren't official, no?

If GW rules are completely official and therefore can not me amended then how do you get ITC FAQ which changes invisibility.

It is not ambiguous in its written word. Has no FAQ on what the power does only how other abilities interact with it.

Yet a public entity through a voting process has considered the nerf mandatory in all ITC events without any official authority given by GW who hold the intellectual rights of the rules.

 rawne2510 wrote:
If GW rules are completely official and therefore can not me amended then how do you get ITC FAQ which changes invisibility.

It is not ambiguous in its written word. Has no FAQ on what the power does only how other abilities interact with it.

Yet a public entity through a voting process has considered the nerf mandatory in all ITC events without any official authority given by GW who hold the intellectual rights of the rules.

A very good point. The business which created the first ITC hasn't lost their GW license, have they?

The license to sell GW stock is very different to the intellectual rights to the rules.

When playing a game in my house, you are playing in the Tournament of Alex.

An official rule in the Tournament of Alex is, that when a player rolls 2 dice and the result is two 1's, the rolling player must immediately sing, "Look at my butt, my butt does the butt dance," while shaking back and forth.

My rule is just as official as GW's rules, in the context of my house. Right?

 rawne2510 wrote:
The license to sell GW stock is very different to the intellectual rights to the rules.

Changing rules is not demonstrating ownership of intellectual rights. I am not aware of any American laws that consider House Rules as demonstrating ownership of intellectual rights. Trying to sell it as your own is. Other countries might, though.

My point was more that refusing to sell their product to a shop is the only enforcement that GW can use. If they truly wished to exercise such absolute authority of their rules, this would be the path they would choose to use.

 Marmatag wrote:
When playing a game in my house, you are playing in the Tournament of Alex.

An official rule in the Tournament of Alex is, that when a player rolls 2 dice and the result is two 1's, the rolling player must immediately sing, "Look at my butt, my butt does the butt dance," while shaking back and forth.

My rule is just as official as GW's rules, in the context of my house. Right?

In the context of your house, your rules supersede GW's rules. However, the people you play with may not agree to that rule and refuse to abide by it.

Can someone maybe close this one?

 OCaermada wrote:
Can someone maybe close this one?

How about just not replying? The thread was idle for days.