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.

I use to treat FAQ's as precedents, as a way to figure out what's going on and as a mechanic for figuring one problems that pop up. As far I was concerned at the time, a ruling in one army's FAQ was a pretty good indicator as to how another army with a similar issue should be ruled.

However, there are enough people in our world community that treat FAQ's as either house rules and as law that FAQ's (as poorly written as they tend to be) seem to add more problems than they resolve.

These days, I simply take each rule conflict on a case by case basis, apply each side equally, and work with the result if possible. If not, than I either look for consensus on the net (like here, or in other forums), or we decide how we want to treat the issue for that game. And that's it.

In a tournament, I find out which FAQ's are being use as rules for that tournament, and treat them as rules for that tournament. Pretty simple.

SJ

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 don't use FAQ's because they are not mandatory, and I know the answers better than those guys" is a completely different attitude than someone saying over a specific rule "Hey, I really think this works differently than how they FAQ'ed it, mind if we play it my way this game"?

Again, the former is not an attitude I want to game with, the latter is completely fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

Yep!

Frazzled 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.

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.

I will agree FAQs facilitate portability of gaming, and have never challenged as such. I support their existence for that purpose (though I wish they counted as rules).

I disagree with you that somehow because they write the rules that if they come up with house rules that somehow their house rules have more weight to the game then house rules developed by any other gamer. If they turned it into a "law" (or as I read it rule) I would agree they would have more say because then they are the game makers and are making a rule. But they, for some reason, refuse to do that. Thus it's a house rule and for my money a house rule is a house rule is a house rule. I'll certainly give them credence at tourneys where they are implemented as part of the tourney rules - but I wouldn't use them when discussing the rules without adding a line specifically clarifying that what I am quoting are the FAQs.

For instance, the National Hot Dog Council has officially come out with their opinion of what condiments you should serve on a hot dog. Does their opinion count for more because they are a group dedicated to making decisions about hot dogs and thus other opinions are lesser, or does everyone who eats a hot dog have an equally valid opinion about how a hot dog should be eaten?

If it's not a rule or a law then it's probably just an opinion, and while I certainly respect their opinion and will support their right to speak of their opinion, I still fail to see why their opinion should count more then mine or yours (though neither should it count for less).

Can't we just all agree that Afrikan Blonde is obviously trolling?

Steelmage99 wrote:Can't we just all agree that Afrikan Blonde is obviously trolling?

No Comment.

... No comment

tblock1984 wrote:c) The reason the document in question exists in the first place was to prevent arguments like the one contained in the previous 6 pages.

It's really not.

The FAQs in their current form exist for the same reason GW US has a guy answering rules questions by email: Some people prefer to have the 'voice of authority' resolve their rules disputes, rather than just dicing for it. That authority doesn't have to be particularly authoritative... it just needs to appear to be endorsed by GW to make it more authoritative than the guy on the other side of the table.

They're (the FAQ's) not intended to stop us from discussing the rules. Nor are they intended to force us to play the game a given way. They're simply a potential source of clarification for those who choose to use them.

tblock1984 wrote:a) I am a noob and just got my rulebook today. AOBR rulebook, page 2, states the first rule is is that the rules don't matter. Therefore, your argument is invalid!

Actually that's not what the rule states - though even if it did it would still fail to make the current debate invalid as it would remove itself from consideration and cause us all to divide by zero. TMIR is about making sure you have fun while you play the game.

As long as you have that sorted out it's quite reasonable to discuss whether or not you believe the FAQs qualify as rules or not.

Steelmage99 wrote:Can't we just all agree that Afrikan Blonde is obviously trolling?

I agree.

tblock1984a wrote: I am a noob and just got my rulebook today. AOBR rulebook, page 2, states the first rule is is that the rules don't matter. Therefore, your argument is invalid!
Unless you are going to argue that it isn't the BGB, so it is unofficial. Therefore, my argument is invalid! (Hurm, sarcasm value seems to be set to high...)

Please read Tenets of You Make da Call with particular attention to #7. Even with sarcasm, these often still apply.

EDIT: code fix

Never mind. BTW, I am not the only one to mention TMIR...
I am going back to the modelling forum now...

I treat them official. But if you don't have a copy of the FAQ when your in battle with me. Then it doesn't apply

Hoorah! Glad to see cooler heads have prevailed in the poll. Official all the way!

Madgod wrote:Hoorah! Glad to see cooler heads have prevailed in the poll. Official all the way!

Yay? Your side is leading in a poll that will most likely not have any influence against those who voted opposite and not change a single thing? And no, they are still not official.

Eternal Newb wrote:And no, they are still not official.

Except at tournaments and in the homes and clubs across the world, where they will be taken as official adjudication on issues by, or endorsed by, the creators of the game...

Only the strangeness of the RAW fundamentalists on this site are sticking vehemently to the notion they aren't 'proper' and several of them have gone on to say that they use them, or just choose to use part of them that they consider suits them best.

You can shout into the storm all you like that they aren't official and the world will continue to use them as official.

To treat the disclaimer as an indication that they are not official would require you also adhere to the disclaimer GW place on page 2 of the rulebook, the great and powerful 'most important rule' that states all rules are mutable according to mutual accord at the table, the 'most important rule' says if you can't immediately find a rule in the books, just roll for it...

We smile at this and still say we are going to use the rules in the book, understanding the point JJ and co are trying to make with the 'most important rule' and the exact same treatment should be applied to the 'disclaimer' for FAQs, they hold equal measure and we understand they are both written to encourage casual play and relaxed atmosphere. If you chose to ignore one of those caveats, as those who adhere strictly to RAW are doing, then you must show equal treatment to the other. Either the FAQs hold water, all of them, or the disclaimer is in effect and if so, the 'most important rule' also holds sway and it's open season on what you do during a game and how.

To do anything else is cherry picking as Frazzled so rightly stated. If your going to make a ruling for your gameplay, stick to it. Either accept the FAQs along with the rules and play according to the ruleset, or accept the disclaimer and the most important rule and play ultra-casual. You really cannot sit on the fence, taking bits of something and bits of the other and then claim it's an absolute, it holds no water.

Eternal Newb wrote:

Madgod wrote:Hoorah! Glad to see cooler heads have prevailed in the poll. Official all the way!

Yay? Your side is leading in a poll that will most likely not have any influence against those who voted opposite and not change a single thing? And no, they are still not official.

At least it's nice to know that most people support me. You don't need to get all defensive.

And MeanGreenStompa is right too.

This is strange, but I agree with MeanGreenStompa...

If the "FAQs are just house rules" disclaimer is given any credit, then TMIR also has to be taken into consideration, wich causes all rules to be optional and will cause the world to come to an end in fire and brimstone...

Therefore, if we ignore TMIR we also have to ignore the FAQ Disclaimer and using that in conjuction with the fact that FAQs are used in practically every single tournament world wide, makes FAQs official rulings with as much weight as the BRB!

The GS Studio attitude is that the core 40K rules are merely some fun house rules they got up while messing around in the studio, which you are welcome to use or adapt as you see fit.

However the management attitude is that GW is purveying a multi-million dollar, well-organised hobby, and that's why the core rules cost £30.


Automatically Appended Next Post:


Mod:

There are two alerts open for posts in this thread, so I will remind people not to

(A) Spam the forum with useless comments.
(B) Put insults at other users. Address the argument not the person.

Most thread which go over 4 pages spiral into a flame fest. Don't let it happen to this one.

Thank you.

PhantomViper wrote:This is strange, but I agree with MeanGreenStompa...

If the "FAQs are just house rules" disclaimer is given any credit, then TMIR also has to be taken into consideration, wich causes all rules to be optional and will cause the world to come to an end in fire and brimstone...

Therefore, if we ignore TMIR we also have to ignore the FAQ Disclaimer and using that in conjuction with the fact that FAQs are used in practically every single tournament world wide, makes FAQs official rulings with as much weight as the BRB!

This is *exactly* as I see it as well. If someone argues that the TMIR is nonsense, then how do they have a leg to stand on anymore when they use the disclaimer for the FAQs which say exactly the same thing. It's basically a case of reading and believing only the parts you would like too.

Basically, nothing in GW rules are 'official' they are all mere guidelines so everyone can have fun.

Steelmage99 wrote:Can't we just all agree that Afrikan Blonde is obviously trolling?

No, we can't. you mayhaps.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Eternal Newb wrote:And no, they are still not official.

Except at tournaments and in the homes and clubs across the world, where they will be taken as official adjudication on issues by, or endorsed by, the creators of the game...

Only the strangeness of the RAW fundamentalists on this site are sticking vehemently to the notion they aren't 'proper' and several of them have gone on to say that they use them, or just choose to use part of them that they consider suits them best.

You can shout into the storm all you like that they aren't official and the world will continue to use them as official.

To treat the disclaimer as an indication that they are not official would require you also adhere to the disclaimer GW place on page 2 of the rulebook, the great and powerful 'most important rule' that states all rules are mutable according to mutual accord at the table, the 'most important rule' says if you can't immediately find a rule in the books, just roll for it...

We smile at this and still say we are going to use the rules in the book, understanding the point JJ and co are trying to make with the 'most important rule' and the exact same treatment should be applied to the 'disclaimer' for FAQs, they hold equal measure and we understand they are both written to encourage casual play and relaxed atmosphere. If you chose to ignore one of those caveats, as those who adhere strictly to RAW are doing, then you must show equal treatment to the other. Either the FAQs hold water, all of them, or the disclaimer is in effect and if so, the 'most important rule' also holds sway and it's open season on what you do during a game and how.

To do anything else is cherry picking as Frazzled so rightly stated. If your going to make a ruling for your gameplay, stick to it. Either accept the FAQs along with the rules and play according to the ruleset, or accept the disclaimer and the most important rule and play ultra-casual. You really cannot sit on the fence, taking bits of something and bits of the other and then claim it's an absolute, it holds no water.

Word to the furry faced guy.

I'm yet another voice in the choir singing TMIR and the FAQ disclaimer are in the same league. If you can't argue TMIR in YMDC threads, then you shouldn't be able to use the FAQ disclaimer either. After all, in the Tenets of YMDC, rule #2 states:

2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs.

There's your answer. When someone in a YMDC thread posts discounting the officially sanctioned FAQ, they should be reported to the MODs for breaking the forum rules.

utan wrote:I'm yet another voice in the choir singing TMIR and the FAQ disclaimer are in the same league. If you can't argue TMIR in YMDC threads, then you shouldn't be able to use the FAQ disclaimer either. After all, in the Tenets of YMDC, rule #2 states:

2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs.

There's your answer. When someone in a YMDC thread posts discounting the officially sanctioned FAQ, they should be reported to the MODs for breaking the forum rules.

I have argued against this tenet multiple times, and showed how it is in error. If you report someone for breaking a this rule in this way then you are just wasting the MODs time.

Demogerg wrote:

utan wrote:I'm yet another voice in the choir singing TMIR and the FAQ disclaimer are in the same league. If you can't argue TMIR in YMDC threads, then you shouldn't be able to use the FAQ disclaimer either. After all, in the Tenets of YMDC, rule #2 states:

2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs.

There's your answer. When someone in a YMDC thread posts discounting the officially sanctioned FAQ, they should be reported to the MODs for breaking the forum rules.

I have argued against this tenet multiple times, and showed how it is in error. If you report someone for breaking a this rule in this way then you are just wasting the MODs time.

As I pointed out earlier, there is a difference between "I don't recognize FAQ's" and "I think this one answer in the FAQ is answered incorrectly, and here's why".

The first goes against the tenets, the second doesn't. There are incorrect rules in the main rulebook as well, but I don't see anyone saying they are allowed to ignore them because they think they are incorrect. You can talk about why you think it is incorrect, but that is completely different than pushing your own answer on people with the excuse that you are ignoring a rule from an official GW source.

Kaaihn wrote:

Demogerg wrote:

utan wrote:I'm yet another voice in the choir singing TMIR and the FAQ disclaimer are in the same league. If you can't argue TMIR in YMDC threads, then you shouldn't be able to use the FAQ disclaimer either. After all, in the Tenets of YMDC, rule #2 states:

2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs.

There's your answer. When someone in a YMDC thread posts discounting the officially sanctioned FAQ, they should be reported to the MODs for breaking the forum rules.

I have argued against this tenet multiple times, and showed how it is in error. If you report someone for breaking a this rule in this way then you are just wasting the MODs time.

As I pointed out earlier, there is a difference between "I don't recognize FAQ's" and "I think this one answer in the FAQ is answered incorrectly, and here's why".

The first goes against the tenets, the second doesn't. There are incorrect rules in the main rulebook as well, but I don't see anyone saying they are allowed to ignore them because they think they are incorrect. You can talk about why you think it is incorrect, but that is completely different than pushing your own answer on people with the excuse that you are ignoring a rule from an official GW source.

What house rules I choose to ignore is up to me, and I think it is immoral to push these house rules on to me just because they are house rules from some people who work in a studio on the other side of the Atlantic. This is a forum about how we call the rules, house rule discussion is fine, but there is a very strong distinction between house rules and actual rules.

The most common failure of YMDC comes up again...This thread is about game theory, not game practice. Maybe Gwar! is telling the truth, maybe he's exaggerating - either way, we all use the FAQs to some extent and know they're Official GW Material, but NOT Official Rules.

Also, I think Afrikan Blonde is trolling, yes. Since you asked.

Demogerg wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:

Demogerg wrote:

utan wrote:I'm yet another voice in the choir singing TMIR and the FAQ disclaimer are in the same league. If you can't argue TMIR in YMDC threads, then you shouldn't be able to use the FAQ disclaimer either. After all, in the Tenets of YMDC, rule #2 states:

2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs.

There's your answer. When someone in a YMDC thread posts discounting the officially sanctioned FAQ, they should be reported to the MODs for breaking the forum rules.

I have argued against this tenet multiple times, and showed how it is in error. If you report someone for breaking a this rule in this way then you are just wasting the MODs time.

As I pointed out earlier, there is a difference between "I don't recognize FAQ's" and "I think this one answer in the FAQ is answered incorrectly, and here's why".

The first goes against the tenets, the second doesn't. There are incorrect rules in the main rulebook as well, but I don't see anyone saying they are allowed to ignore them because they think they are incorrect. You can talk about why you think it is incorrect, but that is completely different than pushing your own answer on people with the excuse that you are ignoring a rule from an official GW source.

What house rules I choose to ignore is up to me, and I think it is immoral to push these house rules on to me just because they are house rules from some people who work in a studio on the other side of the Atlantic. This is a forum about how we call the rules, house rule discussion is fine, but there is a very strong distinction between house rules and actual rules.

Except of course, those "house rules" are by the guys who wrote the rules.

I think we can agree it is important to know how the vast majority feels about whether or not the FAQs are official. Simply stated I am tired of the redundant phrase

But the FAQs are not official, GW even said so!

:(

Frazzled wrote:Except of course, those "house rules" are by the guys who wrote the rules.

Except, they didn't half the time. Yakface did...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Afrikan Blonde wrote:But the FAQs are not official, GW even said so!

It's the truth, so why can we not state it?

Gwar! wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Except of course, those "house rules" are by the guys who wrote the rules.

Except, they didn't half the time. Yakface did...

And they agreed with them.

Frazzled wrote:

Demogerg wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:

Demogerg wrote:

utan wrote:I'm yet another voice in the choir singing TMIR and the FAQ disclaimer are in the same league. If you can't argue TMIR in YMDC threads, then you shouldn't be able to use the FAQ disclaimer either. After all, in the Tenets of YMDC, rule #2 states:

2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs.

There's your answer. When someone in a YMDC thread posts discounting the officially sanctioned FAQ, they should be reported to the MODs for breaking the forum rules.

I have argued against this tenet multiple times, and showed how it is in error. If you report someone for breaking a this rule in this way then you are just wasting the MODs time.

As I pointed out earlier, there is a difference between "I don't recognize FAQ's" and "I think this one answer in the FAQ is answered incorrectly, and here's why".

The first goes against the tenets, the second doesn't. There are incorrect rules in the main rulebook as well, but I don't see anyone saying they are allowed to ignore them because they think they are incorrect. You can talk about why you think it is incorrect, but that is completely different than pushing your own answer on people with the excuse that you are ignoring a rule from an official GW source.

What house rules I choose to ignore is up to me, and I think it is immoral to push these house rules on to me just because they are house rules from some people who work in a studio on the other side of the Atlantic. This is a forum about how we call the rules, house rule discussion is fine, but there is a very strong distinction between house rules and actual rules.

Except of course, those "house rules" are by the guys who wrote the rules.

Which makes no difference. If a Senator wrote a "house-law" for while you are on his property that said something to the effect of "no one is allowed to pass gas" and offered it online as a "house-law" to help you out with pesky interlopers it has as much effect on actual laws as GW's FAQs have on the actual rules.

Possession is nine tenths of the law. If you get busted with a pound of cocaine your ass is grass.