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.

GW Shrine of Knowledge wrote:
What's the difference between Errata and FAQs?
As it is rather obvious from their name, these documents include two separate elements - the Errata and the FAQs. In case you were wondering, 'Errata' is a posh (Latin!) way to say 'Errors', and 'FAQs' stands for 'Frequently Asked Questions'. It is important to understand the distinction between the two, because they are very different.

The Errata are simply a list of the corrections we plan to make on the next reprint of the book to fix the mistakes that managed to slip into the text (no matter how many times you check a book, there are always some!). These are obviously errors, for example a model that has WS3 in the book's bestiary and WS4 in the book's army list. The Errata would say something like: 'Page 96. Replace WS3 with WS4 in the profile of the so-and-so model'.

The Errata have the same level of 'authority' as the main rules, as they effectively modify the published material. They are 'hard' material. It is a good idea to read them and be aware of their existence, but luckily there are very few of them for each book.

The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'. They are, of course, useful when you play a pick-up game against someone you don't know, or at tournaments (i.e. when you don't have a set of common 'house rules' with the other player). However, if you disagree with some answers and prefer to change them in your games and make your own house rules with your friends, that's fine. In fact we encourage you to shape the game around your needs and your taste. We firmly believe that wargaming is about two (or more!) people creating a gaming experience they are both going to enjoy. In other words, you might prefer to skip the FAQs altogether and instead always apply the good old 'roll a dice' rule whenever you meet a problematic situation.

- Games Development, November 2008

sauce

Nice of GW to clarify the clarifications for us, eh?

JohnHwangDD wrote:you might prefer to skip the FAQs altogether...

Priceless, or should that be worthless.

A more of GW's commitment to being noncommittal.

BYE

So wait, are they saying their FAQs aren't even official?
Studio House Rules?

Well thank god we can always dice off, amirite?

I've said it several times, but its going to be up to the community itself to develop a tournament FAQ and errata along the lines of the Adepticon FAQ that give hard rulings and could potentially contain balance errata..

What I also like, aside from GW's wonderful ability to answer a question without giving us a definitive, is how the FAQ's are there to cover grey areas where there is no right or wrong.

No.

That's half true.

There are certainly grey areas, we've seen enough of them, but the other half of the FAQ's stem from badly or lazily written rules that require explanation and clarification. In those instances there most certainly is a right and wrong answer.


But overall, just like with the 'do whatever you want' non-answer in the Dark Angel FAQ, this little blurb of GW's is their 'get out of writing good rules free' card, as no only do they now not have to bother with FAQs (they're not official anyway... or are they? They won't tell us, that's for sure...), but they can wash their hands of them whenever they want to, leaving them blameless because it's 'up to the player'.

In other words, they're putting the onus of sorting out their rules on the player. Shouldn't the onus for good rules be on the idiots writing them?

BYE

Orkeosaurus wrote:So wait, are they saying their FAQs aren't even official?

No. GW is saying their FAQs are officially unoffically official.

They're not saying that. They're not saying the opposite of that either. They're saying nothing.

GW 2009 - "Indecisive and noncommittal... probably... we're not sure."

BYE

Orkeosaurus wrote:So wait, are they saying their FAQs aren't even official?
Studio House Rules?

Well thank god we can always dice off, amirite?

No they said that they cant regulate our personal games so if we don't like the FAQs we should feel free to go with our own rules. It did mention tourneys as a place where FAQs exist though and should be used. Oddly this is all common sense so I don't know why they would bother to state any of it.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:So wait, are they saying their FAQs aren't even official?
Studio House Rules?

Well thank god we can always dice off, amirite?

No they said that they cant regulate our personal games so if we don't like the FAQs we should feel free to go with our own rules. It did mention tourneys as a place where FAQs exist though and should be used. Oddly this is all common sense so I don't know why they would bother to state any of it.

Well there goes my hope for excommunicating rubberhawks...

But it's still somewhat strange that they called them "soft rules," and said that they're "useful" in tournaments and pickup games.
Then again, I guess that's what HBMC was getting at from the beginning.

Orkeosaurus wrote:But it's still somewhat strange that they called them "soft rules," and said that they're "useful" in tournaments and pickup games.
Then again, I guess that's what HBMC was getting at from the beginning.

But it's still the same BS as the Dark Angels FAQ re: Space Marine equipment: "Hey, here's what we think, but you don't have to listen to us, ultimately it's your game and be it on your heads. We just write the rules."

It's meaningless to say people don't have to use the FAQs if they don't want to. People don't have to use the main rulebook if they don't want to.

The FAQs either solve problems that have arisen from mistakes or ambiguity in the main rulebook, or they don't. If they don't they are a waste of everyone's time.

You've got to understand that GW really do not believe in the term "official".

All they offer in the way of rules are "suggestions" as to how two consenting adults may wish to pass the time while in possion of a gaming table and a few dozen model soldiers.

Seriously. I'm not joking. The idea of a "Magic: The Gathering" style pseudo-sport is something that GW are not interested in supporting in any way, shape or form. If people want to turn it into that then they are welcome, but don't expect GW to do it for them.

Personally as a casual gamer I couldn't give a flying fig about consistency between groups of gamers. My personal minimal standard is that the rules are logically laid out, easy to understand and apply, and not overly complicated by too many exceptions. 2nd, 3rd and 4th editions didn't meet those expectations for me, 5th does. Just.

Personally I'm happy to d6-it from time to time, but then I probably only play 40k around 5 or 6 times a year at current rates. I do want GW to care enough about the rules that they are as perfect a set as is possible to produce, simply because it makes a game more fun if you don't constantly run up against situations where you have to make the rules up as you go along. Too many of those and you may as well chuck out the rulebook and just play Army Men (or Apocalypse, whichever rocks your boat...)

Personally I do agree that they are settling for "second best" by excusing themselves from writing rules that are robust enough to stand up to tournament standards. It does come over rather like they don't have confidence in their own abilities. A view which contrasts strongly with their apparent arrogance in

But I am certain it lies in 40k's roots as a GM-moderated RPG-lite from the 1980's. They don't seem to want to make the shift to compete with the standards and expectations set by more recently created games (such as dare I say it Warmachine/Hordes) in this area. That they *could* do it if they wanted to is borne out by the LotR game, while not perfect, is a masterclass in clarity and elegance in comparison to WFB and 40k, makes it all the more galling.

Osbad wrote:You've got to understand that GW really do not believe in the term "official".

...

QFT.

GW doesn't want players to use FAQs a blunt instrument to beat their opponents over the head with, which is why GW wants their FAQs to be reference material to be mutually agreed upon in advance. That way, they can keep changes to a minimum with the errata, so that the Rulebook and Codices largely stay unchanged.

That said, I'd love to see them issue a 1-page "errata" things like WBB and Lash..., and then *print* it as a "free" WD supplement.

NO! That brings us back to the dark days of 3rd edition when you had no idea what anything did and had to bring a binder full of errata and FAQ's in order to play the game. I'd rather they just got it right the first time or released a comprehensive FAQ after the book came out.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

In my case, I was, you know, thinking of the children...

Why do it for free when you can put it in a WD?

its like why make trillions if we can make ... billions?

Osbad wrote:You've got to understand that GW really do not believe in the term "official".

Actually, I can think of one big area where GW absolutely believes in "official."

In GW sponsored tournaments, you better have "official" GW made models to play....

Saldiven wrote:

Osbad wrote:You've got to understand that GW really do not believe in the term "official".

Actually, I can think of one big area where GW absolutely believes in "official."

In GW sponsored tournaments, you better have "official" GW made models to play....

or at least 40%gw

I thought the operative word was "majority", meaning 51%.

I don't see the point of answering questions if the answer isn't an answer.

Kilkrazy wrote:I don't see the point of answering questions if the answer isn't an answer.

And that is precisely why GW doesn't like to create FAQs.

Wow, this comes up a lot.

This FAQs aren't official as in "anybody that doesn't play them is cheating", but they are the "most official" ways to play. Tournaments and casual games will use them, for the simple reason that they can use any rules they want.

I find GW as infuriating as the next guy, but once you understand where they are coming from it makes a certain odd sense.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I don't see the point of answering questions if the answer isn't an answer.

And that is precisely why GW doesn't like to create FAQs.

That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense DD.

GW can give the answer. A definitive one that is 100% true. They choose not to, because they're either lazy, don't care, or both, and then give us pathetic non-answers like this most recent FAQ blurb where they put the onus on us to come up with answers.

They don't like writing FAQs because they don't want to be held accountable for anything they do, which is why they're throwing it back on the player.

BYE

GW gives answers. They are in the position where they believe that we should play the way we want to in our homes. Saying that the FAQs were mandatory would somehow require you to use them. Which, funny thing here, you wouldn't use them anyway. So it kinda makes sense for them to endorse them but not require them. They are used in GW sanctioned tournaments, and they state that they are valuable in non sponsored ones.

But they are of the opinion that if you don't want to use them you don't have too and they aren't going to make you.

ShumaGorath wrote:GW gives answers. They are in the position where they believe that we should play the way we want to in our homes. Saying that the FAQs were mandatory would somehow require you to use them. Which, funny thing here, you wouldn't use them anyway. So it kinda makes sense for them to endorse them but not require them. They are used in GW sanctioned tournaments, and they state that they are valuable in non sponsored ones.

But they are of the opinion that if you don't want to use them you don't have too and they aren't going to make you.

That isn't an excuse for writing bad clarifications. Nor is there any actual difference between requiring something and endorsing it in terms of actual players practice. People will play how they wish to play, regardless of the language utilized to frame the status of the FAQ. Simply saying something is required only forces the player to consider the clarification on equal footing with the actual rule when determining how to apply that rule. It does away with the 'but its not official' argument. Not by standardizing the rule-set, but by applying consistency in the treatment of all published material.

I said this in the other thread but I'll also post it here:

As it happens, if this is truly GW design goal now (or lack thereof), then I don't actually see it as a bad thing. I think their reasons for it are pathetic - internal consistency going in their 'too hard' basket when all it would require is to have Warrick of FW glory in charge of a document that lists all weapon stats, that way whenever they need one he can use his awesome powers of Copypasta to make sure it's consistent with the last book - but the idea of a more 'free' game is a good one. I've had endless fun with 40K ever since 4th Ed came out, not because we were playing 4th Ed, but because we took the best bits of 2nd, 3rd and 4th and made our own ruleset. A more open game is a better game, even if the genesis of such a line of thinking stems from a dev team too lazy or incompetant to write a decent ruleset.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:... such a line of thinking stems from a dev team too lazy AND incompetent to write a decent ruleset.

fixed

What if all of GW's failures have been intentional, with the hope that the game's players will eventually give up on the official ruleset and create their own?

Maybe GW is actually owned by M Night Shyamalan?

Orkeosaurus wrote:What if all of GW's failures have been intentional

Little too far into conspiracy land for my liking.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Maybe GW is actually owned by M Night Shyamalan?

What a twist!

BYE