FAQs=RAI?

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.

**willydstyle**

Given that the ruling in the FAQ RE:Valkyries and their bases directly contradicts almost all of the rules for skimmers in order to make the model playable as intended, and given previous rulings from FAQs that also directly contradict RAW (EG: psychic powers that don't need LoS vs. embarked units), I have begun to see many of the FAQ rulings as more of a "this is how we intended the units to be played" ruling than a "this is what the rules actually say" ruling.

So what do you guys think? Given that we have documents to prove RAI, how admissible are these rules to RAW debates?

**Polonius**

willydstyle wrote:Given that the ruling in the FAQ RE:Valkyries and their bases directly contradicts almost all of the rules for skimmers in order to make the model playable as intended, and given previous rulings from FAQs that also directly contradict RAW (EG: psychic powers that don't need LoS vs. embarked units), I have begun to see many of the FAQ rulings as more of a "this is how we intended the units to be played" ruling than a "this is what the rules actually say" ruling.

So what do you guys think? Given that we have documents to prove RAI, how admissible are these rules to RAW debates?

I think they should be admitted. They're not clarifications, but they're explanations of what they meant to say. Call it what you want, it's the writers of the rules telling us how rules should be played.

I dont' think it changes the RAW debate over the rule itself, but this is extra information changes how it's played by nearly everybody.

**Gwar!**

FAQ = House Rules. Nothing more. People just think they are more valid that Joe Bloggs House Rules because apparently some important people wrote them, even though said important people make it explicitly clear that the FAQ mean jack gak and all they are is a bunch of house rules.

**Polonius**

That might be true, but they do make RAW arguments even more academic than normal.

**willydstyle**

Gwar! wrote:FAQ = House Rules. Nothing more. People just think they are more valid that Joe Bloggs House Rules because apparently some important people wrote them, even though said important people make it explicitly clear that the FAQ mean jack gak and all they are is a bunch of house rules.

But here's the thing: RAI is seen as inadmissible to debate because there is no way to prove it. When they go ahead and write down a document that says "hey, this is how the designers play it," then don't you have RAI that you can cite from a document written by the designers?

Honestly, I think that most FAQ rulings should be errata, to bring the actual rules more inline with each other, but I think that millions of Guard players would feel burned that their book was made obsolete by a more recent and correct version.

**Gwar!**

willydstyle wrote:Honestly, I think that most FAQ rulings should be errata, to bring the actual rules more inline with each other, but I think that millions of Guard players would feel burned that their book was made obsolete by a more recent and correct version.

And of those Millions, how many are just jumping on the IG bandwaggon? Yes I know it makes GW money, but I don't have to like how they go about it.

**Polonius**

This is what I meant by Academic: there comes a point where we have to separate "how do I play this in a game" from "What do the rules say." With an FAQ, it doesn't really answer the latter, but it does answer the former.

It's a dry exercise, it has no real value. "well, we know that we're not supposed get use FRF/SRF with hot shot lasguns, but let's discuss it some more.."

**warboss**

Gwar! wrote:FAQ = House Rules. Nothing more. People just think they are more valid that Joe Bloggs House Rules because apparently some important people wrote them, even though said important people make it explicitly clear that the FAQ mean jack gak and all they are is a bunch of house rules.

they're not house rules. they're officially sanctioned useful (albeit much of the time contradictory much like the actual rules) clarifications from the company who publishes the rules. just because they're not printed and bound for sale near you doesn't make them any less valid. can post your source for that last sentance of your post?

ps. nice avatar.

**olympia**

The FAQs consistently support RAI over the RAW fundamentalists.

**Polonius**

olympia wrote:The FAQs consistently support RAI over the RAW fundamentalists.

To be fair, that's the whole reason they're seen less as FAQs and more as errata. I mean, I think they show that while GW might claim to support GW, they really don't' see their rules as being played in any way other than casually, by RAI.

**Flavius Infernus**

The argument is inductive. The only thing you can determine for sure from the fact that FAQs sometimes change RAW rules is just that--sometimes GW changes RAW rules using FAQs.

You can't generalize that to mean that GW would always do this, or that all RAW rules should be something else. Clearly, GW is leaving the vast majority of RAW rules alone, so there'd be no way to determine which ones should be changed and which ones should stay the same.

**Sliggoth**

Part of the problem with the FAQ is with their wording of what a FAQ actually is. Its not far off from their "The most important rule!" wording in the BGB. So while they are claiming that FAQs are less "real" than errata, they use similar language to lower the value of all of the rules in the BGB.

It almost seems that they are trying to cover themselves on the FAQs, saying that maybe this FAQ violates the rules in some way but its just the way we play it here in the studio. They may be trying to avoid having their FAQs picked apart if they mess one up. This would be their way of doing the minimum to answer questions, so they can get back to the important business of painting their figs.

FAQs are not very different from rules, its hard to judge which might be more sloppy actually.

At the very least, FAQs are a very good read on what is RAI, which if we do not have a clear RAW is giving us some scraps of information.

Sliggoth

**Gwar!**

warboss wrote:they're not house rules. they're officially sanctioned useful (albeit much of the time contradictory much like the actual rules) clarifications from the company who publishes the rules. just because they're not printed and bound for sale near you doesn't make them any less valid. can post your source for that last sentance of your post?

warboss wrote:they're not house rules. they're officially sanctioned. can post your source for that last sentance of your post?

warboss wrote:they're not house rules.

Look here

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.

I added pink just so you don't miss it

**Polonius**

Of course, that same bit also says that they deal with grey areas where often there is no right and wrong answer, which means they're operating on the assumption that there are two or more equally valid ways to play most things covered by FAQs. It's a good way to devalue the FAQs, but it also shows the studios disdain for the idea that there is a single, true, RAW answer for every rules question.

**A-P**

Polonius wrote:
To be fair, that's the whole reason they're seen less as FAQs and more as errata. I mean, I think they show that while GW might claim to support GW, they really don't' see their rules as being played in any way other than casually, by RAI.

( Takes a deep breath. ) This is exactly the major problem with GW`s current policy. They are advocating a policy that can be summed up as: "This is a "beer & pretzel" hobby, you´re supposed to have fun. Rules are just a necessary evil. Why should you be concerned about rules? We certainly are not!". Excuse me while I puke. For the record: I don´t attend tournaments and so can be described as one the mythical "casual gamers" of GW mythology. But I still want clear, conscise rules. Having invested a considerable amount time, effort and MONEY, the least I would expect from the company selling the product in question would be to provide proper support. Why did I pay them money for a rulebook[i] and a Codex in the first place?

The current situation means that I potentially have to negotiate houserules every single time I play against a new opponent. This is very frustrating and most assuredly Not Fun(tm). Tight rules and fun casual gaming are NOT mutually exclusive.

**Polonius**

Actually, I think casual gamers suffer from a loose ruleset more than tourney gamers do. Tournaments have judges, a lot now use centralized FAQs, and most communities and areas build up a certain play style that's bigger than a house rule, more of a regional trend.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, while these are merely suggestions and "house rules," they're by far the most definitive source of rules outside of the actual books. People simply are going to use them.

**olympia**

Gwar you should post some battle reports. I'm sure the community would love to read about how you tell your opponents to ignore FAQs and such before the game starts.

**jp400**

olympia wrote:Gwar you should post some battle reports. I'm sure the community would love to read about how you tell your opponents to ignore FAQs and such before the game starts.

**Gwar!**

olympia wrote:Gwar you should post some battle reports. I'm sure the community would love to read about how you tell your opponents to ignore FAQs and such before the game starts.

Have I at any point ever said "I never use FAQs?" I do use FAQs, I say "Hey, listen, shall we use the FAQs where the RaW is muddy?" What I do not do is use the FAQs when the RaW is clear and the FAQs are trying to be errata.

**olympia**

Gwar! wrote:
olympia wrote:Gwar you should post some battle reports. I'm sure the community would love to read about how you tell your opponents to ignore FAQs and such before the game starts.
Have I at any point ever said "I never use FAQs?" I do use FAQs, I say "Hey, listen, shall we use the FAQs where the RaW is muddy?" What I do not do is use the FAQs when the RaW is clear and the FAQs are trying to be errata.

So no Leman Russ for WH

**Gwar!**

olympia wrote:So no Leman Russ for WH

Yes, no Leman Russ for WH. RaW is clear as Crystal. Same for Deff Dread Attacks.

**Nurglitch**

RAW = RAI

**Gwar!**

Nurglitch wrote:RAW = RAI

Exactly. If they intended for it to be any different, they would have written it different.

**olympia**

Gwar! wrote:
olympia wrote:So no Leman Russ for WH
Yes, no Leman Russ for WH. RaW is clear as Crystal. Same for Deff Dread Attacks.

Your hypothetical opponent might counter, "The FAQ is crystal clear and back up the rules. Clearly you have misread the rules. The FAQ was written for people like you."

**Gwar!**

olympia wrote:Your hypothetical opponent might counter, "The FAQ is crystal clear and back up the rules. Clearly you have misread the rules. The FAQ was written for people like you."

To which I would retort "GW state that the FAQ are not rules, but rather their version of house rules. Thus they are not universally applicable."

**Fateweaver**

Haha, if I played WH and someone told me at a tournament or friendly game that my 1 LRBT I have in my list cannot be fielded even though the latest FAQ says I can, that opponent would find my LRBT shoved so far down his throat he'd be able to reach into his ass and yank it out.

I'm glad I don't play with donkey-caves. We play that if the FAQ's clear something up or let us do something or say we can't than that is how we play. Many people may disregard the GW FAQ's as not meaning anything but for my group, if it clears something up or invalidates something, that is how we do it UNLESS we disagree otherwise, which more often than not we don't.

**olympia**

Gwar! wrote:
olympia wrote:Your hypothetical opponent might counter, "The FAQ is crystal clear and back up the rules. Clearly you have misread the rules. The FAQ was written for people like you."
To which I would retort "GW state that the FAQ are not rules, but rather their version of house rules. Thus they are not universally applicable."

So all your RAWism ends up with, "Well I guess we roll for it." How banal.

**Gwar!**

olympia wrote:So all your RAWism ends up with, "Well I guess we roll for it." How banal.

No, it ends up with a Pre game "You want to play by the rules? No? Ok, I'll find a real Opponent."

**1hadhq**

So ignoring FAQ's helps to actually never get a game?

Quote GW:
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
/quote

Do not accept any support from GW or independent like INATFAQ, when this threatens you to actually PLAY instead of sniffing through rulebooks.

FAQ's may be not RAI at the time a codex/rulebook was written, but they are the easy to access and worldwide available answer
from a company that may change the rules if they want.
And those FAQ's are available in every supported language too.

SO:

GW FAQ vs someone's reply at the net = FAQ wins.

**willydstyle**

Gwar! wrote:
olympia wrote:So no Leman Russ for WH
Yes, no Leman Russ for WH. RaW is clear as Crystal. Same for Deff Dread Attacks.

I have, in fact, offered to let my orkish opponents use the number of deff dread attacks that the rules support (3+1 I believe? Could be remembering wrong). Of course, I've also let a Wolfie player use the new Guard rules for the Russ Exterminator (4 twinlinked autocannon shots). I think that having a fun time can trump RAI and RAW.