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.

It has come to my attention that some people have a problem with using Gw’s official FAQs. I’ve heard that they are nothing more then poorly written house rules and in fact they are in error and aren’t even official.

I would like to know how many people think that they are official rules and use them as such or think that are just irrelevant house rules and shouldn’t be used or even looked at.

Edited for clarification.

The poll is worded exactly how I wanted it. It only applies to the FAQ not the errata. I want a black or white/yes or no answer. I didn’t want any gray areas because there are too many shades of gray. If you decide to use them and change one word or an item then your not using them if you accept them as they are or even add to them without changing them then you use them. For a pick up game do you use them when making a list or if someone else used them while making a list would have a problem playing with them? Just like the real world if you can’t commit to one or the other you can choose not vote.

If your going to say the FAQs are poorly written then you also have to acknowledge that the codicies as well as the main books are also poorly written as well all containing confusing and contradictory rules. As such, the FAQs are not rules per se, but more clarifications of the rules in the codicies and BRB, I have yet to find added rules in a FAQ, but I may be wrong. My crew and I actually use the FAQs in our games as they actually clarify older Codicies that have rules that no longer work. For example, the (in)accuracy rule is no longer in the the game, and as such, was clarified in the 5e FAQ. Or that according the the FAQ, a Vindicare Assassin can target a model in close combat because of the removal of target restriction. But its up to everyone to decide. I'm voting Official Rules though.

s2

"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"
-qouted from http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=1000018&pIndex=2&aId=3400019

you need more options....

To kinda piggyback on what Jayjester is saying as well... Errata are where the rules are made/changed, but in most instances (but not all) these changes are placed in subsequent editions of the rulebooks and codicies. Anyways, as Gwar would say, its up to both players to agree on the rulesets being used in the game. If you or your opponent dont agree with the FAQs/Errata, refuse to use them.

Edit: To Frgsinwntr - Just curious, what other options would you put up there?

jayjester 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"
-qouted from http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=1000018&pIndex=2&aId=3400019

You can change whatever rules you want though. It's up to you and your opponent. The errata is something that it wouldn't make sense to change (as it's usually a typo), while the questions answered by the FAQ may already have been answered within a gaming group based on what they think is best.

I draw your eye to:

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).

and:

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 terms of "official", I don't know that GW holds that standard so much. A game of Warhammer can't be played without both players agreeing on what the rules are; the GW FAQ are for if you and your opponent haven't agreed on something prior, or if you're at a tournament that doesn't have a set FAQ. You can rule it differently if you want, or just dice everything off, but that's another stage of agreement between you and the person you're playing.

In that regard, I would say that the FAQs are "official" in the sense that it is commonly used; that is to say that it acts as a common set of rules for people who may not have discussed such things prior to their game.

Now, GW's FAQs are rather lacking in detail, and coverage of rules that people are actually concerned about (Deffrollas, for example), but that's another issue.

I would have voted for somewhere in the middle, myself.

They're not official rulings. The passage that jayjester just quoted from the GW website is the proof of that.

But they're certainly not irrelevant. They're a strong indication of, if not how the game is intended to be played, at least how the game is played by the guys currently writing the rules.

So I'll disregard an FAQ ruling if I disagree strongly with it... but am otherwise happy to accept them as being as 'official' as we're going to get.

Insaniak, I would agree that FAQs are not official rulings but clarifications on rules, but the statements that Errata has the same authority of as rules from the rulebooks/codicies so in essence, they are official rulings. Is it just because they are not in the BRB? If the answer is because of GWs statement "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."

Then I would argue that the whole rulebook is not official as they have stated that you can change the rules in the entire game as long as both players agree.

Yeah, Games Workshop is so non-committal it makes things more confusing.

s2ua7 wrote:Insaniak, I would agree that FAQs are not official rulings but clarifications on rules, but the statements that Errata has the same authority of as rules from the rulebooks/codicies so in essence, they are official rulings.

The Errata are official. The FAQs are not.

Is it just because they are not in the BRB?

No, it's because GW themselves state that they're not official.


If the guys writing the rules say that their clarifications are unofficial and should be freely ignored if you so desire, then the only conclusion I can draw from that is that those clarifications are unofficial and should be freely ignored if I feel like it...


Again, that doesn't apply to the actual Errata. Just the FAQ part.

insaniak wrote:
Again, that doesn't apply to the actual Errata. Just the FAQ part.

Thats the part I was wondering about. As I said, I can totally understand the FAQ part though... There I some where I just shake my head and wonder where did they get that, but alot of them do make sense.

They never said that they weren't official, just that they were "soft material". They also state that any rules may be altered by the players if they both agree in the BGB, so that's kind of a non-factor.

However they clearly give the alternative for using their FAQs as using "house rules". They say that the FAQ is "in a way, their own 'studio house rules'", but, that seems to have little definition besides being an allowance for people to ignore them if they and their opponents agree.

I think they are both Official Rules and Irrelevant House Rules because of the poorly made poll in this thread.

lol @ Drunkspleen. the only part I did not like about the poll was the word "irrelevent." Only because I dont know that they are irrelevent as they are comming from the creators of the game. To me, this shows the RAI mindset that the creators have for the game, but again, that is my opinion and everyone is entitled to their own.

I'm not a fan of GW's FAQs. Mainly because they often fail to address what needed to be addressed.

The vast majority of FAQs either address things that were perfectly clear or change things that were perfectly clear.

This is what annoys me about GW (well, not the only thing, obviously... )

If I am playing a game at home with one of my buddies, we can play to whatever rules we like. If we don't like something we can change it at any time and for any reason - and I don't need GW's explicit permission to do so.

BUT - if I play in a tournament I expect clear and unambiguous rules (and rulings) to ensure a fair and level playing field. It doesn't matter how perverse a rule(ing) seems to be - if both players know beforehand, they can both prepare for the situation.

Clear and concise rules have never stopped casual/friendly/fluffy/-insert word here- gamers from doing anything they like, but a lack of them is a nightmare for tournaments, or even pick-up games where the players don't have time to formulate their own house rules before playing.

So why doesn't GW pull its finger out and make FAQ's that are actually worth the paper they're written on?

/rant

Badly mode poll.

The Errata part is official.
The FAQ part is unofficial, but not irrelevant. It is a strong indication of intent. Actually it is the only indication of intent we have acces to that has any kind of weight.

Errata: Official
FAQ: Irrelevant House rules (as by their own admission)

Simple.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:So why doesn't GW pull its finger out and make FAQ's that are actually worth the paper they're written on?

Because they think it doesn't make them money

Edited original post for clarification.

Rewording things doesn't help when people have already voted and cannot change their vote. Not that I intend to change my vote, just making a point......................

They suck all of them and have usually slowed answers.

In some areas the GW FAQs are not well supported by the text they supposedly clarify. Nevertheless, I have to go with treated as rules - after all, if the company which makes the rules (some of which are badly written or poorly tested) wants to add in FAQs (some of which...) then there is at least consistency which any child development expert can tell you is at least as important as making good decisions.