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.

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

Afrikan Blonde wrote:Or not.

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

Thor665 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


shrug

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

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

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

Except that they are not, by order of GW?

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

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

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

Gwar! wrote:

utan wrote:

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

Except that they are not, by order of GW?

Still preaching that line, huh?

Afrikan Blonde wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

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

Except that they are not, by order of GW?

Still preaching that line, huh?

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

Afrikan Blonde wrote:Still preaching that line, huh?

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

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

Regards,
Thor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

insaniak wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

KK I just sigged you mate!

: )

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

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

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

insaniak wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Demogerg wrote:

insaniak wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Demogerg is 100% right here.

olympia wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Huh? Like what?