Switch Theme:

Chapter Master unavailable in Space Marine formations?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Infiltrating Broodlord




New York

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?

1. Tyranids - 15,000 pts
2. Chaos Space Marines - 7,100 pts
3. Space Marines - 6,000 pts
4. Orks - 5,900 pts
5. Dark Angels - 4,300 pts
6. Necrons - 4,600 pts
7. Grey Knights - 3,200 pts
8. Eldar - 3,400 pts
9. Blood Angels - 3,200 pts
10. Chaos Daemons - 3,200 pts
11. Tau Empire - 3,000 pts
12. Space Wolves - 2,400 pts 
   
Made in us
Automated Rubric Marine of Tzeentch





ft. Bragg

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.

Let a billion souls burn in death than for one soul to bend knee to a false Emperor.....
"I am the punishment of God, had you not committed great sin, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you" 
   
Made in us
Infiltrating Broodlord




New York

 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?

1. Tyranids - 15,000 pts
2. Chaos Space Marines - 7,100 pts
3. Space Marines - 6,000 pts
4. Orks - 5,900 pts
5. Dark Angels - 4,300 pts
6. Necrons - 4,600 pts
7. Grey Knights - 3,200 pts
8. Eldar - 3,400 pts
9. Blood Angels - 3,200 pts
10. Chaos Daemons - 3,200 pts
11. Tau Empire - 3,000 pts
12. Space Wolves - 2,400 pts 
   
Made in us
Not as Good as a Minion





Astonished of Heck

 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.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
Infiltrating Broodlord




New York

I had 1 question...still unanswered.

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

1. Tyranids - 15,000 pts
2. Chaos Space Marines - 7,100 pts
3. Space Marines - 6,000 pts
4. Orks - 5,900 pts
5. Dark Angels - 4,300 pts
6. Necrons - 4,600 pts
7. Grey Knights - 3,200 pts
8. Eldar - 3,400 pts
9. Blood Angels - 3,200 pts
10. Chaos Daemons - 3,200 pts
11. Tau Empire - 3,000 pts
12. Space Wolves - 2,400 pts 
   
Made in nz
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran




Ankh Morpork

 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."
   
Made in us
Automated Rubric Marine of Tzeentch





ft. Bragg

 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.....

Let a billion souls burn in death than for one soul to bend knee to a false Emperor.....
"I am the punishment of God, had you not committed great sin, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you" 
   
Made in us
Not as Good as a Minion





Astonished of Heck

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?

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in pl
Regular Dakkanaut






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...

   
Made in nz
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran




Ankh Morpork

 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."
   
Made in gb
Stealthy Kroot Stalker





 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.
   
Made in de
Witch Hunter in the Shadows



Aachen

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.
   
Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





 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...

2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
Made in gb
Lethal Lhamean




Birmingham

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.
   
Made in gb
Stealthy Kroot Stalker





 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.
   
Made in us
Prescient Cryptek of Eternity





East Coast, USA

 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.

Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com


https://www.thingiverse.com/KrisWall/about


Completed Trades With: ultraatma 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






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.
   
Made in us
Infiltrating Broodlord




New York

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

1. Tyranids - 15,000 pts
2. Chaos Space Marines - 7,100 pts
3. Space Marines - 6,000 pts
4. Orks - 5,900 pts
5. Dark Angels - 4,300 pts
6. Necrons - 4,600 pts
7. Grey Knights - 3,200 pts
8. Eldar - 3,400 pts
9. Blood Angels - 3,200 pts
10. Chaos Daemons - 3,200 pts
11. Tau Empire - 3,000 pts
12. Space Wolves - 2,400 pts 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 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).
   
Made in de
Witch Hunter in the Shadows



Aachen

 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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/10 15:09:38


 
   
Made in us
Not as Good as a Minion





Astonished of Heck

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.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 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.
   
Made in de
Witch Hunter in the Shadows



Aachen

 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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/10 15:15:14


 
   
Made in us
Not as Good as a Minion





Astonished of Heck

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.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
Prescient Cryptek of Eternity





East Coast, USA

 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.

Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com


https://www.thingiverse.com/KrisWall/about


Completed Trades With: ultraatma 
   
Made in us
Not as Good as a Minion





Astonished of Heck

 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.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
Prescient Cryptek of Eternity





East Coast, USA

 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.

Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com


https://www.thingiverse.com/KrisWall/about


Completed Trades With: ultraatma 
   
Made in de
Witch Hunter in the Shadows



Aachen

 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.
   
Made in us
Infiltrating Broodlord




New York

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.

1. Tyranids - 15,000 pts
2. Chaos Space Marines - 7,100 pts
3. Space Marines - 6,000 pts
4. Orks - 5,900 pts
5. Dark Angels - 4,300 pts
6. Necrons - 4,600 pts
7. Grey Knights - 3,200 pts
8. Eldar - 3,400 pts
9. Blood Angels - 3,200 pts
10. Chaos Daemons - 3,200 pts
11. Tau Empire - 3,000 pts
12. Space Wolves - 2,400 pts 
   
Made in us
Not as Good as a Minion





Astonished of Heck

 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?

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: