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.

 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.