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.

My premise is that GW has never publicly stated that their FAQs are unofficial. It's a myth circulated and most people do not bother to find out for themselves which is often the case unfortunately. If you believe that the FAQs are indeed unofficial please cite your reference. A quote would be very much appreciated!

Thanks!

Afrikan Blonde wrote:My premise is that GW has never publicly stated that their FAQs are unofficial. It's a myth circulated and most people do not bother to find out for themselves which is often the case unfortunately. If you believe that the FAQs are indeed unofficial please cite your reference. A quote would be very much appreciated!

Thanks!

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=1000018&pIndex=2&aId=3400019&_requestid=339942

ERRATA & FAQs
Welcome to the Errata & FAQs section of our website. Here you can find the latest Errata & FAQs documents for our current books in the form of downloadable pdf documents.

In this section we cover Warhammer Fantasy Battle, Warhammer 40,000 and The Lord of the Rings Strategy Battle Game. We aim to have one pdf for each book belonging to these systems, including the three main rulebooks and all Warhammer Armies books, Warhammer 40,000 Codexes, and The Lord of the Rings Journey Books and Sourcebooks. If a book is not covered, it is either because we are not aware of any issues with it or we haven't got to it yet.

We aim to publish a first document within the first few months of a book's release. After this initial release, we'll review and update these documents regularly, adding new questions and errata, and correcting any mistakes we might have made when answering some of the questions.

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

House Rules are not Official Rules. That'll be US$900 for labour please. Also, why multiple choice poll? Oh Well -Votes for all-

Afrikan Blonde wrote:My premise is that GW has never publicly stated that their FAQs are unofficial. It's a myth circulated and most people do not bother to find out for themselves which is often the case unfortunately. If you believe that the FAQs are indeed unofficial please cite your reference. A quote would be very much appreciated!

Thanks!

Yet you're wrong. GW has publicly stated that they are NOT official [and I was wrong earlier it's not in the rulebook I don't think, it's up on the website where they talk about what a FAQ should be used for]. Go check it out.

For the record, I voted that they are official - I'll play my game the way the creators of the game play it, the ones that wrote the rules. If the guy that created checkers told me he played the game a different way, I'd toss the checkers rulebook aside and play it his way, rather than slap it like some kind of monkey saying "RAW! RAW! MUST PLAY BY RAW!"

The rules of 40k exist to create a common ground with which players can play the game. The book clearly says that it encourages creativity and house rules. "The only way to play fairly is by RAW" is a flawed argument because as long as people are having fun, who cares? Maybe for tournaments you need more concrete rulings, but TOs often pick and choose their own interpretations anyway, and often choose GW FAQs for their rulings - and we all know you can't argue with a TO in their own house.

So who cares? If you and your mates think that flubbing RAW to make the game more fun is cool, then do it. And if you're TFG at your game store that's slamming his book over people's heads to get them to do it RAW just because IT'S THE RIGHT WAY DAMMIT! then you're just going to alienate yourself.


From the quoted material:

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.


When Gwar! and I play, I'd demand we roll a dice to see which interpretation of, for instance, Njal's stormcaller ability we'd use. And if he didn't want to do that, we wouldn't play a game. And that's not because I don't like Gwar!. He has his perfectly valid reasons for being VERY resolute about RAW. And I, on the other hand, prefer the power to be useful as I think it was intended, and don't think the game's any fun if the winner of the dice roll can cause him to lose two of his very powerful abilities by choosing to make the SW player go second. So when it came down to it, I wouldn't back down and neither would he. In a tournament situation, we'd ask the TO, who would probably go by what the FAQ said.

It's worth noting, though, that UNLESS there was an FAQ, he'd probably go with Gwar!'s RAW ruling.

Bah Gwar, I had almost the same thing already to go. Boo you.

House rules are not official, therefore FAQs aren't.

Eternal Newb wrote:Bah Gwar, I had almost the same thing already to go. Boo you.

House rules are not official, therefore FAQs aren't.

I are l33t Ninja Trolle. Hear me NERDRAGE!

The FAQs that are on GW's own website? I've never heard anyone who says that they are not official, They are there to clarify game mechanics, what kind of rules abusing idiot would clam other wise?

I would say the vast, vast, VAST majority follow the FAQs, but it's common knowledge that they aren't hard rules.














Vast.

Curses wrong place! Ignore this!

GW did not say they are not official. They said they help to deal with grey areas and they encourage their use at tournaments. Errata on the other hand simply deal with clerical errors that are simple to correct.

wolf40k wrote:The FAQs that are on GW's own website? I've never heard anyone who says that they are not official, They are there to clarify game mechanics, what kind of rules abusing idiot would clam other wise?

Because house rules are not official.

Are FLGS treats them as official asstupid asgwis they made the game its there rules if they fix a problem with an faq even its not what you thought its how they ment it to be played which is what we were all aiming for playing the rules correct.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:GW did not say they are not official. They said they help to deal with grey areas and they encourage their use at tournaments. Errata on the other hand simply deal with clerical errors that are simple to correct.

House Rules ARE NOT official Rules.

If they are, I house Rule that you will now always lose on a 2D6 roll of 2 or more and you must play with it, because it is official.

With the appropriate negative modifiers, of course.

I think the FAQS can be a helpful thing tho. I think everyone should read through them, specially for their own armies. Mainly because they point out mistakes they put in the codex that most people miss. Example Said stat on page whatever is actually meant to be like stat on page this one.

That can screw ya up if you use the stats from one certain page but its wrong

Hell, there's a House Rule right INSIDE the BRB, and no-one claim that's RaW...because it clearly isn't.

Saying FAQs are RaW is like saying Tomatoes are a Vegetable. Just because most people cook (play) like they are, doesn't mean they magically become one.

FAQ's are official.

You should have an "other" category. Our crew play them as official, but in my opinion, the are conditional on the codicies that are out. A great example are the army specific questions at the end of the BRB FAQ. With the release of the new IG codex, the FAQ no longer applies, but it is not updated to reflect, but other than that, I play that they are official.

Its pretty depressing that GW need to release faqs in the first place.

And further more , its even more depressing when GW is afraid to call it official because they know the faqs are poorly written as well.

LunaHound wrote:
Its pretty depressing that GW need to release faqs in the first place.

And further more , its even more depressing when GW is afraid to call it official because they know the faqs are poorly written as well.

Every game system, nay, every system ever conceived has an FAQ. Does that make all of life depressing? I think not. I think it's refreshing that the designers choose to share their thoughts with us on how it ought to be played. I just wish they'd do it a little bit more often and have a more open forum, like Magic the Gathering or even Privateer Press.

whitedragon wrote:FAQ's are official.

Yay Facts!




Oh...

I use them, but I don't consider them to be anything more than house rules... because that's what GW says they are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spellbound wrote: If the guy that created checkers told me he played the game a different way, I'd toss the checkers rulebook aside and play it his way,

What if the way the rulebook says to play it is better?

Your confusing the word 'official' with the appropriate term for rules, which would be 'mandatory'.

They are official because GW published them. They are not mandatory in the sense that what is printed in the rule books are mandatory*. Most players treat them as mandatory rules by choice, but GW themselves clearly state you don't have to use their interpretations.

It seems rather ridiculous to me to ignore the explanations from the writer, especially in a game where the printed writing is known to be ambiguous in places. I won't say it's ambiguous on purpose, but it is purposely not tightened to the standard of a typical games rules. People that refuse to use FAQ answers are not wrong. Misguided, in my opinion, but not wrong.





*Rules in the rulebook aren't mandatory either actually, we are told we can ignore whatever we want. All of these rules are just a framework, not a book of laws to lawyer over and legislate the game with.

Explanations from the writer? I don't know which FAQs you're talking about.

I follow the FAQ fairly closely, but they are not "official". Hence my lack of a vote in the poll.

I treat them as official solely because everyone else does.

RAW is that the "rules aren't all that important" so following strict RAW is against the RAW!

Official? No.

What they are good for (mostly) is achieving some kind of working solution - when there are multiple equally valid interpretations of the way a rule is worded.

There are some significant flaws in them, and they're not nearly comprehensive or updated enough to be considered 'official'.

EDIT: Excising cruddy grammar.

Kaaihn wrote:People that refuse to use FAQ answers are not wrong. Misguided, in my opinion, but not wrong.

Given GW's track record for contradictory, inconsistent, poorly thought out or just downright odd FAQ answers, I think that would really depend entirely on what those people are doing instead.

Choosing to disregard an FAQ response you don't like in favour of playing it in a way that you feel to be better for the game is (IMO) the exact opposite of 'misguided'...



For a personal case in point, back in 3rd or 4th edition (honestly can't remember which off the top of my head) GW ruled in their Ork FAQ that attack squigs should be represented by a separate model. At that particular point in time the only model they produced with an attack squig had it sculpted directly onto the model's arm.

So we very quickly decided around here that the FAQ answer was dodgy, and ignored it. My Stormboyz nob still has his attack squig mounted on his rokkit pack, although it's going to have to either come off or count as something else under the current codex... :(


I did the same with the Guard answer from the last codex, that suggested that for heavy weapons teams you should pretend there was a normal 25mm base under each model. Adding this rule was clunky and uneccessary, since they already functioned perfectly well under the existing rules. That FAQ answer was fine for those who struggled to figure out how the teams worked within the existing rules and just wanted an easy (if somewhat inelegant) fix, but made no sense to those who had been playing them as is for more than 5 years at that point...


So, at the end of the day, the FAQ's are best treated as what they are: suggestions for house rules to cover situations that GW aren't prepared to issue errata for.

Timmah wrote:I treat them as official solely because everyone else does.

I don't, not do a number of people voting in this poll.

What is your source for your claim "everyone else does."

insaniak sums it up nicely.

The FAQs would be great guidance text except that they directly contradict the rules on too many occassions.

Personally, I do tend to use them when they aren't too egregious simply because they're common ground on some of the dodgy rules issues (I say some because there are many issues that the FAQs have not addressed).