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've played against an official playtester. Gwar! knows the rules better than him. It's reasonable to assume that he also knows the rules better than the Design Team.

Elessar wrote:I've played against an official playtester. Gwar! knows the rules better than him. It's reasonable to assume that he also knows the rules better than the Design Team.

Official playtesters are irrelevant.
Your assumptions cannot be supported in this context.

Frazzled wrote:

Elessar wrote:I've played against an official playtester. Gwar! knows the rules better than him. It's reasonable to assume that he also knows the rules better than the Design Team.

Official playtesters are irrelevant.
Your assumptions cannot be supported in this context.

Nor can yours. How do you know the people who write the game wrote the FAQs?

@Elessar: Having spoken to a few, I can say a trained Labrador knows the rules better than a 3rd of them.

Frazzled wrote:

Elessar wrote:I've played against an official playtester. Gwar! knows the rules better than him. It's reasonable to assume that he also knows the rules better than the Design Team.

Official playtesters are irrelevant.
Your assumptions cannot be supported in this context.

How can people who have an influence on Rules-Writing be irrelevant, unless... The opinions of the Design Team as to how the game SHOULD be played are ALSO irrelevant!

Official playtesters are irrelevant.
Your assumptions cannot be supported in this context.

Nor can yours. How do you know the people who write the game wrote the FAQs?

The problem with young people in general is that they think they know everything. Your elders will suddenly become geniuses as you transition from a teen ogre to a mature adult.

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.

They are house rules. You don't have to use them in a friendly game if you don't agree to.

Completely separate from that issue, they are clarifications of rules that GW feels are a grey area currently. As such the discussion of one of those rules cannot have a clear answer. You may think it does, but GW has told you it does not, which means you might want to rethink how you are determining answers since the company making the game is telling you that you are wrong.

Don't forget a FAQ answer is a final step answer, where a RAW answer is a first step answer. That's where the disconnect on rules forums comes from. With the exception of the minority of 40K Fundamentalists, people asking for answers are looking for final step answers, not an intellectual discussion about an answer restricted to the RAW stage.

I highly doubt anyone is going to call you down for politely stating that even though a FAQ addresses an issue, you want to discuss just the RAW answer to a question as a mental exercise.

Kaaihn 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.

They are house rules. You don't have to use them in a friendly game if you don't agree to.

Completely separate from that issue, they are clarifications of rules that GW feels are a grey area currently. As such the discussion of one of those rules cannot have a clear answer. You may think it does, but GW has told you it does not, which means you might want to rethink how you are determining answers since the company making the game is telling you that you are wrong.

Don't forget a FAQ answer is a final step answer, where a RAW answer is a first step answer. That's where the disconnect on rules forums comes from. With the exception of the minority of 40K Fundamentalists, people asking for answers are looking for final step answers, not an intellectual discussion about an answer restricted to the RAW stage.

I highly doubt anyone is going to call you down for politely stating that even though a FAQ addresses an issue, you want to discuss just the RAW answer to a question as a mental exercise.

A FAQ is a set of answers to Frequently Asked Questions, when someone asks GW about a rule, its not necesarily because the rules have a grey area, and it is most definately because said person does not understand the rules. GW issues responses to questions as examples of house rules (specifically, their house rules) to clarify situations, not as a modification to the rules as they have been published. When a question is asked enough times about a rule that many people may find difficult to understand (although it may have a very specific and direct answer within the rules) then GW puts it on the website to get people to stop bothering them with questions. These are still simply examples of how some players modify the game based on their opinions and not based on what the published material states, in the same manner, a politician might not agree with the death penalty, but his state laws might support it, if you ask the politician about it he will always avoid sentencing someone to the death penalty- he may even go as far as to appoint judges who agree with his opinion. However, unless this politician changes the laws of his state, the death penalty is still there, to claim that the state doesn't have the death penalty because they havent killed anyone in 4 years, and the current governer is opposed to it is erroneous.

The opinions of a person in a place of power mean nothing unless said person uses his or her power to change the status quo. What you read in FAQs are opinions, and if they really wanted to change the rules they could, but they have not.

No the FAQ states how to play the game, not citing some examples of how you can play the game. Do you play a rule differently depending on how you feel that day? It does not work that way.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:No the FAQ states how to play the game, not citing some examples of how you can play the game. Do you play a rule differently depending on how you feel that day? It does not work that way.

No, the FAQ states one way to play the game, and also states that the FAQs are house rules that are not actual rules.

Gwar! wrote:

Afrikan Blonde wrote:No the FAQ states how to play the game, not citing some examples of how you can play the game. Do you play a rule differently depending on how you feel that day? It does not work that way.

No, the FAQ states one way to play the game, and also states that the FAQs are house rules that are not actual rules.

The BRB also states one way to play the game and it also states that the rules within are more like guidelines that can be changed to suit both players.

Demogerg wrote:
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.

Real Life (and fairly vague) comparison with no substance in this conversation.

Elessar wrote:I've played against an official playtester. Gwar! knows the rules better than him. It's reasonable to assume that he also knows the rules better than the Design Team.

Entirely irrelevant to this discussion, if the FAQ was written by a giant squid, it remains posted on the company site of the producers of the game and holds value.

Gwar wrote: @Elessar: Having spoken to a few, I can say a trained Labrador knows the rules better than a 3rd of them.
How can people who have an influence on Rules-Writing be irrelevant, unless... The opinions of the Design Team as to how the game SHOULD be played are ALSO irrelevant!

The creator of the document is not the issue, the validity or lack thereof, as you are trying to ascertain, is meaningless, it is the endorsement or the lack thereof, from the company that is the issue here. The documents are produced on the official site, they carry a disclaimer with the same weight as the disclaimer from the second page of the rulebook, something people on your 'side' of this discussion keep skimming over very conveniently.

Kaaihn wrote:

Demogerg wrote:
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.

They are house rules. You don't have to use them in a friendly game if you don't agree to.

Not Correct if you are ignoring The Most Important Rule then you should be ignoring the FAQ disclaimer, if you afford the FAQ Disclaimer validity, then you should also embrace The Most Important Rule.
So, discussion and agreement. Immoral? Rediculous. The FAQs are the way the games designers play the rules out, nothing immoral about accepting those decisions as the best means to play, your wording is inciteful and hyperbole. You've gone on to state you'll play as you want to? Why that's just like the Most Important Rule, so if your opponent comes up with an idea to make the game more playable or faster, then you would afford him or her the same right? Since ANY rule is as open to change or acceptance as the FAQs.

Again, since folks aren't processing this, the disclaimer for the FAQs hold precisely the same weight AS WRITTEN as the Most Important Rule. To accept one without the other is to lack consistancy and any talk of 'I will use that or won't use the other' is employing personal choice and NOT using the rules are written.

Modquisition on:
I've gone through about six reports for this thread. Lets not use the report mechanism wontonly here guys.

Frazzled wrote:Modquisition on:
I've gone through about six reports for this thread. Lets not use the report mechanism wontonly here guys.

I am not, I am just applying the same level that my detractors use.

To me the FAQs are official, but still house rules.

Thus they are official house rules, meaning they are optional. I agree with some of the answers given, which I use, but I modify them as my opponent and I see fit.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Again, since folks aren't processing this, the disclaimer for the FAQs hold precisely the same weight AS WRITTEN as the Most Important Rule. To accept one without the other is to lack consistancy and any talk of 'I will use that or won't use the other' is employing personal choice and NOT using the rules are written.

I accept both TMIR and the FAQ disclaimer. But that fails to either support or detract from my standpoint that the FAQ is not official rules and that the rulebook is. TMIR states (paraphrasing here) 'the rules are not important and change what you want'. The FAQ states (these are house rules). If TMIR called the rulebook 'house rules' I would agree with your belief that FAQ = rules. If The FAQ said 'these rules follow TMIR' or if it restated TMIR at the top of it or siad 'these are rules to be treated like the rulebook rules' or said 'treat these as rules' or any other variation thereof I would agree with your standpoint.

GW calls one rules and one house rules and never calls either the other way. This does not dictate whether or not someone should use or not use any gven rule, but it does seem to clearly define to me that they are two distinct types of rules - one being the rules, and the other the house rules.

I would also note that TMIR allows someone playing the game to treat the rules "as sacrosanct" so certainly Gwar! has a solid GW backed foundation to his cries of RAW and RAW only. (Until he shows up to game with you with a gun and forces you to play that way, then you can deride him freely for those actions)

Thor665 wrote:I would also note that TMIR allows someone playing the game to treat the rules "as sacrosanct" so certainly Gwar! has a solid GW backed foundation to his cries of RAW and RAW only.

QFT. Funny how the people who cry "But TMIR says I can!" forget this

Demogerg wrote:A FAQ is a set of answers to Frequently Asked Questions, when someone asks GW about a rule, its not necesarily because the rules have a grey area

Actually the preface to the FAQ page that folks love to quote so much specifically says they deal with a grey area, where there is no right or wrong answer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:
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.
They are house rules. You don't have to use them in a friendly game if you don't agree to.

Not Correct if you are ignoring The Most Important Rule then you should be ignoring the FAQ disclaimer, if you afford the FAQ Disclaimer validity, then you should also embrace The Most Important Rule.
So, discussion and agreement. Immoral? Rediculous. The FAQs are the way the games designers play the rules out, nothing immoral about accepting those decisions as the best means to play, your wording is inciteful and hyperbole. You've gone on to state you'll play as you want to? Why that's just like the Most Important Rule, so if your opponent comes up with an idea to make the game more playable or faster, then you would afford him or her the same right? Since ANY rule is as open to change or acceptance as the FAQs.

Again, since folks aren't processing this, the disclaimer for the FAQs hold precisely the same weight AS WRITTEN as the Most Important Rule. To accept one without the other is to lack consistancy and any talk of 'I will use that or won't use the other' is employing personal choice and NOT using the rules are written.

Something went wrong with what you were quoting. That is not from me, that is from Demogerg. Please edit, I do not want what I consider to be ridiculous nonsense attributed to my name. Only the last sentence is mine, the "They are house rules. You don't have to use them in a friendly game if you don't agree to." statement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

Thor665 wrote:I would also note that TMIR allows someone playing the game to treat the rules "as sacrosanct" so certainly Gwar! has a solid GW backed foundation to his cries of RAW and RAW only.

QFT. Funny how the people who cry "But TMIR says I can!" forget this

That's because it isn't actually true. RAW states that the given rules are a framework. A framework is pretty much the exact opposite of a complete and wholly sacrosanct body of work.

Thor665 wrote:
I accept both TMIR and the FAQ disclaimer. But that fails to either support or detract from my standpoint that the FAQ is not official rules and that the rulebook is. TMIR states (paraphrasing here) 'the rules are not important and change what you want'. The FAQ states (these are house rules). If TMIR called the rulebook 'house rules' I would agree with your belief that FAQ = rules. If The FAQ said 'these rules follow TMIR' or if it restated TMIR at the top of it or siad 'these are rules to be treated like the rulebook rules' or said 'treat these as rules' or any other variation thereof I would agree with your standpoint.

GW calls one rules and one house rules and never calls either the other way. This does not dictate whether or not someone should use or not use any gven rule, but it does seem to clearly define to me that they are two distinct types of rules - one being the rules, and the other the house rules.

Not correct I'm afraid, the statement that they are house rules only exists in the disclaimer, so if you are not accepting the disclaimer and not accepting The Most Important Rule of just rolling dice instead of looking up rules, then the FAQs ARE official rulings.

Either you accept the disclaimer and the most important rule or you accept a hard line on rules as written, which means you do not embrace the most important rule and don't embrace the disclaimer which states the FAQs are 'house rules'. All or nothing I'm afraid.

There is not avoiding it, you either;
-accept open and interpretive play and thereby accept you can pick and choose from the FAQs, roll off tough decisions or further alter the game as you see fit and is mutually consenting.
or
-Take what's written in the rulebook as sacrosanct, ignoring the most important rule on page 2 to do so and thereby eliminating the disclaimer for FAQs, which means you eliminate the mention of FAQs as 'house rules' and render them back to the status of official ruling by GW on how to play out situations.

Kaaihn wrote:

Demogerg wrote:A FAQ is a set of answers to Frequently Asked Questions, when someone asks GW about a rule, its not necesarily because the rules have a grey area

Actually the preface to the FAQ page that folks love to quote so much specifically says they deal with a grey area, where there is no right or wrong answer.

And what pisses me off is when they contradict areas that there IS a right answer. The RaW is clear that Deff Dreads get an extra attack, but the FAQ totally ignores this.

Gwar! wrote:

Thor665 wrote:I would also note that TMIR allows someone playing the game to treat the rules "as sacrosanct" so certainly Gwar! has a solid GW backed foundation to his cries of RAW and RAW only.

QFT. Funny how the people who cry "But TMIR says I can!" forget this

That's because it isn't actually true. RAW states that the given rules are a framework. A framework is pretty much the exact opposite of a complete and wholly sacrosanct body of work.

Gwar! wrote:
RaW says they are a framework for house rules. My House rule is We play as though RaW cures the Common Cold. How is that any less valid than me saying "TMIR lets me win on a 1+"?

Right, so personal interpretation of the rules then.

Thanks for clarifying that.

The poll is actually about whether people consider the FAQs to be official, not what GW say about it.

The fact that GW say they are not official but the majority (so far) polled take them to be official says something about the disconnect between GW and their audience.

Chapter Approved is house rules.

So if you have fun playing with the rules as sacrosanct, you are breaking the rule that says to have fun?

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Gwar! wrote:
RaW says they are a framework for house rules. My House rule is We play as though RaW cures the Common Cold. How is that any less valid than me saying "TMIR lets me win on a 1+"?

Right, so personal interpretation of the rules then.

Thanks for clarifying that.

How is "Play by the rules" a personal opinion? How is "Play by the Faqs" not?

Gwar! wrote:How is "Play by the rules" a personal opinion? How is "Play by the Faqs" not?

The most important rule Gwar:
"You can treat them as sacrosanct or mere guidelines - the choice is entirely yours." page 2, the BGB

So, you made the choice, that's your personal opinion. Fairly black and white to me.

Ok, but why does my "choice" hold less weight than someone using unofficial FAQs to let them include Leman Russ' in armies that are no longer allowed to have them?

I consider the FAQs official and strictly adhere to them because they meet three criteria:
1. They come from GW (I don't care who in GW... their janitors are no less qualified to interpret rules than, say, gav thorpe)
2. They aren't limited to a particular game type (i.e. apocalypse) or tournament (i.e. ard boyz).
3. They are readily verifiable (i.e. not a random redshirt ruling or email response)

So I voted for the first option.

-GK

GiantKiller wrote:I consider the FAQs official and strictly adhere to them because they meet three criteria:
1. They come from GW (I don't care who in GW... their janitors are no less qualified to interpret rules than, say, gav thorpe)
2. They aren't limited to a particular game type (i.e. apocalypse) or tournament (i.e. ard boyz).
3. They are readily verifiable (i.e. not a random redshirt ruling or email response)

So I voted for the first option.

-GK

So if an FAQ came out and said "Ultramarines actually use BS 10 instead of BS 4" but it was not an Errata, you would use it? Not to mention FAQs can easily be faked. Just edit the PDFs and print them out. Unless they go and verify it there on a Laptop, they will not know the difference. If you are able to compromise their Computer (or use your laptop with a fake self run server), you can make them think whatever you want. It's so easy its not even funny.

Gwar! wrote:why does my choice hold less weight than someone using unofficial FAQs to let them include Leman Russ' in armies that are no longer allowed to have them?

I'd say your choice holds exactly the same weight, given that we all get exactly one vote in this poll.

The only problem you might run into could be finding a sufficient number of opponents who've made the same choice.

-GK

Gwar! wrote:


So if an FAQ came out and said "Ultramarines actually use BS 10 instead of BS 4" but it was not an Errata, you would use it?

Every smurf would use it.....

And no, there is no change for statlines higher than +1 or -1 and commonly this would be a errata.