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.

For vehicles it’s a bit more complex. You draw LOS from the weapon mount, and you measure range to and from the base if it has one, or the hull if it doesn’t.

Can you please... PLEASE... quote me a page # in the BGB where I can find this.
I've looked and I'm not having any luck.

I always thought that was the rule, but my group insists that it's from the weapon mount.

I don't mind WHICH way I do it, as long as it's the right way.
If I can show that to them in the BGB, they WILL change how they play (we try to follow RAW as much as possible).


Thanks,
Eric

Mannahnin wrote:The best post in the entire thread.

Thanks for this it will be the way me and my friends will play the game. I'm going to print it out and use it for play.

I think I may have found that "magic cylinder lite" is actually completely supported by the rules.

Firstly Magic cylinder lite:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/103057.page

Secondly:
The "break no rule" fact:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/6158.page

So after reading those posts you can make a few statements.

Firstly:
Page 20 of the rulebook says: "All vehicles, vehicle wrecks, monstrous creatures and artillery, friend or foe block line of sight. A line of sight can still be drawn over or past such models, but not through them. Use a model's eye view to determine if you can see past them."

You would be breaking a rule by not allowing me to shoot over or past "vehicles, vehicle wrecks, monstrous creatures and artillery".

Secondly:
The Wrecks rules on page 68 says: "[A Wreck] continues to block line of sight as if it were intact but counts as difficult terrain for infantry movement. . .it provides a 4+ Cover save for models on top of it or looking around it."

So wrecks are not area terrain, they are simply "difficult terrain for infantry movement". You would be breaking a rule calling it area terrain, since this is a specific rule for vehicle wrecks.

Thirdly:
We have determined “This rule is intended to ensure that players don't get penalized for having impressive banners, blades, gun barrels, spectacularly posed models, etc”, I think is fairly clear that only trivial portions and bits sticking out for dramatic effect are ignored." This definitely concludes that arms, legs etc are not "banners, blades...bits sticking out for dramatic effect"


So I think these combine to validate "magic cylinder lite" conclusively. Excuse me while I go redesign my defilers (thankfully unpainted) and remove the ridiculously huge legs and arms and make it somewhat near the size of a dreadnought.

washout wrote:So I think these combine to validate "magic cylinder lite" conclusively.

Er... How?

washout wrote:Excuse me while I go redesign my defilers (thankfully unpainted) and remove the ridiculously huge legs and arms and make it somewhat near the size of a dreadnought.

To be honest, if you're going down the conversion route, you will do better to do a Brass Scorpion-style conversion than to totally rework and re-limb. First it's easier, second, it's more acceptable to the opponent.

MagickalMemories wrote:

For vehicles it’s a bit more complex. You draw LOS from the weapon mount, and you measure range to and from the base if it has one, or the hull if it doesn’t.

Can you please... PLEASE... quote me a page # in the BGB where I can find this.
I've looked and I'm not having any luck.

I always thought that was the rule, but my group insists that it's from the weapon mount.

I don't mind WHICH way I do it, as long as it's the right way.
If I can show that to them in the BGB, they WILL change how they play (we try to follow RAW as much as possible).


Thanks,
Eric

Oddly enough, its on page 6, under BASES, which tells you how to measure distances: "firstly a model is considered to occupy the area of the base, so when measuring distances use the closest edge of the base as your refrence point. For Models without a base (usually vehicals) use the model's hull/main body instead."

insaniak wrote:

washout wrote:So I think these combine to validate "magic cylinder lite" conclusively.

Er... How?

If you don't let someone draw los over a model you are breaking the rule that says you can. If you don't use the rule that says a model occupies it's base you are breaking that rule. So they go hand in hand to support it. You have to use both rules. You can't pick and choose which rules to use and which ones not to (excepting house rules). So the "true magic cylinder" is breaking a BGB rule, and the "friendly models eye view", and "true models eye view" are also breaking a BGB rule, so they are invalid. The only one that is not breaking any rules is the "magic cylinder lite".

insaniak wrote:The vehicle rules in the rulebook state that you measure range from the hull and LOS from the weapon mount.

Which only leaves the issue of what counts as 'hull' and what counts as extra bits, just as we have for LOS.

The rulebook FAQ for some unknown reason ruled that this supposedly created issues and so changed measurement to the weapon instead of the hull.

Which does indeed allow you to model longer barrels for extra range, and results in all sorts of sitations where you can shoot at something that can't shoot back.

The person who wrote that FAQ is an idiot. there was a very good reason why they changed from that 3rd editon rule to the rules listed on page 20 of the BBB for 4th edition.
it prevented abuse and standardised all the bases

Now the quick fix for that is following the base rules found in the BBB. go get yourself some plasticard and stick your vehicle model (where the hull counts as the base)on a base that is larger than the hull and whammo your model now has a base that is larger than the one it came with and now follows the rules for models with a base IE LOS from the gun range from the base. problem solved.

washout wrote:If you don't let someone draw los over a model you are breaking the rule that says you can. If you don't use the rule that says a model occupies it's base you are breaking that rule. So they go hand in hand to support it. You have to use both rules. You can't pick and choose which rules to use and which ones not to (excepting house rules). So the "true magic cylinder" is breaking a BGB rule, and the "friendly models eye view", and "true models eye view" are also breaking a BGB rule, so they are invalid. The only one that is not breaking any rules is the "magic cylinder lite".

You're ignoring the fact that on page 20, the BGB tells you specifficly to use Model's Eye View (see the quote in the OP). Aslo, it says a "model is assumed to occupies the area of its base,..." area is a 2D figure, so you can't use it to justify a 3D figure such as a cylinder

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Re: Defilers in specific-

A big portion of our issues with Defilers come from the fact that almost no one puts their Defiler on a base, which by rights it really should be.

Well-put!

Considering that the 40k FAQ *contradicts* the rulebook in a number of places, I wouldn't necessarily agree that the FAQ is a proper override of the rulebook. I would treat the FAQ as informative and advisory, but non-authoritative, akin to what might get when calling GW's infamous Droolzboyz.

The entire point of the FAQ is to be an official clarification (and in some cases revision) of the rules. The rulebook is official, and the FAQ is the official modification/explanation of the rulebook. These ARE the authoritative resources.

Equating it to the (totally nonbinding, unofficial, and notoriously inconsistent) GW customer service reps' answers over the phone is a pretty extreme and unusual position.

The Defiler doesn't come with a base for some reason. That reason is most likely the one I identified- it's impractical due to size. That doesn't mean you can't play it in a consistent and fair manner based on the rules we have. The fact that it doesn't come with a base doesn't allow us to willy-nilly ignore the rules. Quite a number of old Dreadnought and Attack Bike models out there didn't come with bases; the people who bought them either put them on bases or work out another fair solution with their opponents.

MagickalMemories wrote:

For vehicles it’s a bit more complex. You draw LOS from the weapon mount, and you measure range to and from the base if it has one, or the hull if it doesn’t.

Can you please... PLEASE... quote me a page # in the BGB where I can find this.

Magicalmemories, as Imriel said, it's on page 6.

washout wrote:

insaniak wrote:

washout wrote:So I think these combine to validate "magic cylinder lite" conclusively.

Er... How?

If you don't let someone draw los over a model you are breaking the rule that says you can. If you don't use the rule that says a model occupies it's base you are breaking that rule. So they go hand in hand to support it. You have to use both rules. You can't pick and choose which rules to use and which ones not to (excepting house rules). So the "true magic cylinder" is breaking a BGB rule, and the "friendly models eye view", and "true models eye view" are also breaking a BGB rule, so they are invalid. The only one that is not breaking any rules is the "magic cylinder lite".

Washout, again I must also refer you to Imriel's post. He's right. Go check out that article again. There is no solid definition for what the rulebook means when it says a model "occupies" the area of its base. But the LOS rules in general definitely don't support the idea of a model blocking a big space of empty air around the physical model. To shoot a model, you need to draw LOS to the actual model; you can't claim a shot by drawing LOS to the empty air over its base if the model itself is hidden.

There's no real conclusively proven "only true and official" way to play this. True Model's Eye View is probably the closest to RAW, but it's a finicky PITA and allows what feel like unrealistic shots. I personally play Friendly Model's Eye View, as that seems the best and truest approach to me and the people I play with. Magic Cylinder Lite is not a terrible approach either. It definitely makes the game play simpler and faster. Yak did a fantastic job on that article, but I think you're misinterpreting it if you derive the conclusion that any one of those approaches is the "true and official" way LOS works.

I just hope the designers have read the article and get LOS cleaned up for 5th edition.

You know what? Several of us should print that bad boy and MAIL it to Jervis.

I realize I'm beating a dead horse here. But I think that article ignores the fact that you can't break any rules in the BGB. The light approach is the only one that definably does not. But I think you have a very valid point. And I think I'll do as suggested and physically mail that article to them.

washout wrote:If you don't use the rule that says a model occupies it's base you are breaking that rule.

There is no rule that says that a model occupies its base.
You're thinking of the rule that says that the model is considered to occupy the area of its base... which is to do with measurement. It has nothing whatsoever to do with LOS except when the Size categories kick in.

Area, as Imriel pointed out, is 2-dimensional. The 'area' of the model's base is the 2-dimensional circle that forms the model's 'footprint'

This footprint is used for measurement, and for LOS where Area Terrain and close combats are involved.


The LOS rules on page 20 tell us to use true LOS in all other situations. True LOS does not involve drawing a LOS to the empty space around the model... just to the model. It even clarifies on page 21 that this LOS must be to the body of the model/

So the cylinder approach, which relies on drawing LOS to an arbitrary cylinder regardless of the position of the actual model, in fact breaks at least 2 rules.

Model's eye view breaks none.

mughi3 wrote:Now the quick fix for that is following the base rules found in the BBB. go get yourself some plasticard and stick your vehicle model (where the hull counts as the base)on a base that is larger than the hull and whammo your model now has a base that is larger than the one it came with and now follows the rules for models with a base IE LOS from the gun range from the base. problem solved.

...except that the FAQ also tells us to ignore the bases on all vehicles except Walkers...

Mannahnin wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Considering that the 40k FAQ *contradicts* the rulebook in a number of places, I wouldn't necessarily agree that the FAQ is a proper override of the rulebook. I would treat the FAQ as informative and advisory, but non-authoritative, akin to what might get when calling GW's infamous Droolzboyz.

The entire point of the FAQ is to be an official clarification (and in some cases revision) of the rules. The rulebook is official, and the FAQ is the official modification/explanation of the rulebook. These ARE the authoritative resources.

Equating it to the (totally nonbinding, unofficial, and notoriously inconsistent) GW customer service reps' answers over the phone is a pretty extreme and unusual position.

The Defiler doesn't come with a base for some reason. That reason is most likely the one I identified- it's impractical due to size. That doesn't mean you can't play it in a consistent and fair manner based on the rules we have. The fact that it doesn't come with a base doesn't allow us to willy-nilly ignore the rules. Quite a number of old Dreadnought and Attack Bike models out there didn't come with bases; the people who bought them either put them on bases or work out another fair solution with their opponents.

The Rulebook is official, yes, unquestionably so. And when it is revised, then yes, those changes are authoritative.

The FAQ? Not even close, especially considering how many things it gets flat-out *wrong* when you refer to the rulebook. The FAQ is merely the pseudo-official unofficial guidesheet, and is no more authoritative than what individual groups of players agree upon. But when the FAQ changes the main rules, then those players are making a conscious, dubious decision NOT to follow the rules in the main book. Perhaps, when the FAQ is written, reviewed, edited, and printed up as a bound document available in GW stores, I'll consider it official. Until then, in many cases it's no better (nay, worse) than the Droolzboyz nonsense.

And that is why GW is getting away from FAQs and such, so that the main rules don't fragment as much. After all, if GW can't spare the efforts of an actual games designer who is willing to sign his name to the thing, why should you consider it "correct"?

Either the FAQ is wrong, or the Defiler model is wrong. Given that GW continues to produce the Defiler without a base, yet clearly has the model capability (see the plastic hills), the proper presumption is that the model is correct. As for ignoring the rules, again, you're starting with the fundamentally flawed assumption that the FAQ is authoritative. It isn't. So no rules are being ignored, unless you can point out where this is stated in the BBB.

As for older Dreadnoughts and Attack Bikes, their basing (or lack thereof) is at the discretion and whim of the owner. If they choose to base it on a Large Blast Template, that is their perogative. If they choose to base it on a Cavalry base, that is also their perogative. If they choose to leave it unbased and force opponents to treat it as conforming to the main hull (ignoring weapons / barrels), that is also their perogative.

So by logical extension, Defilers are only as large as the central hull, as it is an unbased Walker. No other conclusion makes sense and is supported by the rules and model together. If players choose to treat the Defiler otherwise, that's up to them.

JohnHwangDD wrote: Given that GW continues to produce the Defiler without a base, yet clearly has the model capability (see the plastic hills), the proper presumption is that the model is correct.

So how do you explain the fact that they still produce a Commissar with a hand flamer?
Or a Leman Russ with sponsons that only move through a 100-ish degree arc?

GW have a long history of producing models that don't fit their own rules. Assuming that the rules must be wrong because of the way they have chosen to sell a particular model is not going to work.

As for ignoring the rules, again, you're starting with the fundamentally flawed assumption that the FAQ is authoritative.

It's certainly intended to be. That's why they release FAQs. They're a 'patch' for rules that are unclear or broken. Unfortunately, they also serve to prove a lot of the time that the Devs don't actually know their own game... but that doesn't make their rulings any less 'official'

Sure, you still have the choice to ignore them. But that's your personal choice, not a reflection on the validity of the FAQ in the first place.

As for older Dreadnoughts and Attack Bikes, their basing (or lack thereof) is at the discretion and whim of the owner.

So the fact that the Defiler doesn't come with a base is an intentional reflection on how the rules are supposed to work, but the fact that the Attack Bike doesn't come with the base is a matter of personal choice?

Consistency for the win!

Just to pick a few nits, and I do not intend anything personal...

>>Second, it clarified that Walkers are the only vehicles which have bases that matter in game terms (skimmer bases don’t count).

They still count if the skimmer model itself does not overhang the base, as is true of the Tau Piranha on the sides.

>>However, I will note that your commentary is based on the presumption that the 40k FAQ is somehow better-tested, and therefore more authoritative than the rulebook or actual Defiler model as-shipped.

It is quite obvious that none of the official FAQs are any better tested than the original rules. However they are more authoritative because the offical rules discrepancy resolution procedure makes them so.

>>Bodily in that context is, I think, a legal term, and does not mean the same thing necessarily. There exist legal dictionaries that have to define the terms in a legal context for clarity when dealing with law spesifically.

Law is a set of rules and the rules of the game are a kind of law.

People use the term body to refer to the whole body and to the main part of the body. They also use it to refer to a mass of formed up troops, as well as other things.

The point is, in the case of shooting at a target partially obscured by terrain, could you shoot at the head of a model looking through a window if you could not see the torso?

>>think you have to take into account that the rule is talking about body even in the context of a tank body. And who is to say which parts of the tank body are the limbs? The legal definition doesnt fit the games definition, it's another contradiction in a long list.

Tanks don't have bodies, they have hulls. The rules are as you say full of contradictions and suffers greatly by not defining its terms. That is what leaves openings for this kind of confusion. Does a Tau Drone have a body? Are the little aerial bits part of its body or are they limbs or spikes?

The basic test should be, is the combat effectiveness of the model affected by a hit in the visible part? Hitting the gun of a tank would break it, so yes. Hitting a flag would not hurt the model carrying it, so no. Spikes are difficult to handle but if they do not provide an in-game benefit such as Spikey Bitz, they should not matter if shot off. (I know that the game does not specifically have a rule that says that only troops with legs can march around.)

I think I had better go and have a glass of something.

Kilkrazy wrote:They still count if the skimmer model itself does not overhang the base, as is true of the Tau Piranha on the sides.

No they don't.

The FAQ says that you ignore the base for all non-vehicle walkers.

No exception is made for vehicles that do not overhang their base.

insaniak wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:As for ignoring the rules, again, you're starting with the fundamentally flawed assumption that the FAQ is authoritative.

It's certainly intended to be. That's why they release FAQs. They're a 'patch' for rules that are unclear or broken. Unfortunately, they also serve to prove a lot of the time that the Devs don't actually know their own game... but that doesn't make their rulings any less 'official'

Sure, you still have the choice to ignore them. But that's your personal choice, not a reflection on the validity of the FAQ in the first place.

Except, the FAQs is NOT authoritative, whether it is intended or not. FAQs are merely advisory in the same way that Droolzboys are advisory, in an effort to cut down on their long-distance toll-free charges.

It's NOT like an "official" patch. If it were like an official patch, it would go through a formal review / publishing process. The FAQs are more akin to fanboi hacks than anything else.

On p.4 of the BBB, it specifically refers to Codices as providing specialized rules (i.e. overrides). This defines a documented rules hierarchy. And then, under TIMR, it expects players to reach subtle agreements (note that 40k4 lacks the "roll a d6" dispute / rules resolution mechanic added in WFB7).

But there is NO reference to FAQs as part of the official rules hierarchy. Therefore, there is no legalist basis for presuming any authoritative basis for FAQs. Unlike Codices, the BBB does NOT specify or recognize FAQs as an alternate / overriding rules source, so therefore no RAW player should accept them as authoritative.

It is far more accurate to state that players have the choice of following the FAQ by mutual consent and agreement. The same as any other set of House Rules. But FAQs are no more authoritative than any other agreement between players, whether to flip a coin, roll a d6, ask a 3rd party, or arm-wrestling.

insaniak wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:They still count if the skimmer model itself does not overhang the base, as is true of the Tau Piranha on the sides.

No they don't.

The FAQ says that you ignore the base for all non-vehicle walkers.

No exception is made for vehicles that do not overhang their base.

Yes, you're right. I got confused by the bit that says the base does not work for large models that overhang it.

I should have thought that the Rule Resolution Flowchart provides support for considering FAQs to be authoritative.

http://uk.games-workshop.com/news/errata/2/

I know they do not go through a formal review/publishing process but neither do the main rules and codexes.

If the Flowchart were in the rulebook, that would be one thing. Otherwise, it's no different that a FAQ claiming authority.

By analogy, if it's no different if I claim to be King of the World. If my claim to authority is self-generated, then it isn't valid any more than somebody else' self-generated claim.

This is why the FAQs don't carry any real weight, nor the flowchart. They can be used out of simple convenience.

But the Rulebook only recognizes the Codices as valid.

...except that the FAQ also tells us to ignore the bases on all vehicles except Walkers...

Thats proceeding under the assumption that the hull is the base. with a vehicle mounted on a base it then bypassed this rule in favor of rules for models on an actual base.

It is far more accurate to state that players have the choice of following the FAQ by mutual consent and agreement.

That is pretty much what or league did.
Everybody realised how stupid this part of the FAQ was so we just use the base rules listed in the BBB.

It's certainly intended to be. That's why they release FAQs. They're a 'patch' for rules that are unclear or broken. Unfortunately, they also serve to prove a lot of the time that the Devs don't actually know their own game... but that doesn't make their rulings any less 'official'

Sure, you still have the choice to ignore them. But that's your personal choice, not a reflection on the validity of the FAQ in the first place.

If you claim the authority of an FAQ you better have a print out of it in your hand because otherwise nobody is under any compulsion to agree with your position.
i've seen may people claim all sorts of things about FAQs that were later proven to be wrong.

mughi3 wrote:Thats proceeding under the assumption that the hull is the base.

Er... what?

It's not proceding under any assumption. The FAQ says to ignore the base on all vehicles except walkers. So if you add a base to a non-walker vehicle, as per the FAQ, you ignore that base for all measurement.

If you were assuming that the hull is the base, you'd be ignoring the hull for all measurement, which doesn't leave you with anything to measure from...

Adding a base to a model that doesn't have one doesn't magically ignore the rule that says that you ignore the base on that model if it has one.

If you claim the authority of an FAQ you better have a print out of it in your hand because otherwise nobody is under any compulsion to agree with your position.

I wouldn't argue any rule, no matter what the source, without a copy of it on hand. That way lies madness.

insaniak wrote:I wouldn't argue any rule, no matter what the source, without a copy of it on hand. That way lies madness.

If it's something the player prints, it's not worth the paper it's printed on.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

insaniak wrote:I wouldn't argue any rule, no matter what the source, without a copy of it on hand. That way lies madness.

If it's something the player prints, it's not worth the paper it's printed on.

So if I scan or photocopy the actual rules out of the BBB, in order to save the weight of all the un-needed fluff, my copy is not worth the paper it's printed on.

There are 3 sources for the authority of the actual BBB:

1. Redshirts/roolzboys (whom nobody believes.)
2. The GW web site, which is also the source for the authority of the FAQs.
3. The rulebook itself, which says it contains everything you need to play battles in the far future etc. but actually does not, since you also need at least one codex.

If you believe in self-appointed authority, the FAQs claim to be modifications of the BBB and codexes.

The authority of any set of rules rests on the willingness of players to accept it and grant it authority. Many players dispute various rules in the BBB, and many players accept the FAQs.

JohnHwang, would you then consider a BA list from the GW site illegal, despite GW stating explicitly that it is official?

JohnHwangDD wrote:If the Flowchart were in the rulebook, that would be one thing. Otherwise, it's no different that a FAQ claiming authority.

By analogy, if it's no different if I claim to be King of the World. If my claim to authority is self-generated, then it isn't valid any more than somebody else' self-generated claim.

This is why the FAQs don't carry any real weight, nor the flowchart. They can be used out of simple convenience.

But the Rulebook only recognizes the Codices as valid.

So your saying its ok for the Rule book to claim to be authorative, but it isn't ok for anything else published by the same people to do it. The only reason the BGB is official is because the people who created the game say it is, and those same people say that the FAQs are official , there for one is as authorative as the other, you can't claim to be able to ignore one without equally trivializing the other.

Kilkrazy wrote:There are 3 sources for the authority of the actual BBB:
1. Redshirts/roolzboys (whom nobody believes.)
2. The GW web site, which is also the source for the authority of the FAQs.
3. The rulebook itself, which says it contains everything you need to play battles in the far future etc. but actually does not, since you also need at least one codex.

Ah, but the Rulebook specifically references Codices as a source for additional rules. Therefore, the Codices are incorporated into the main rules by reference.

If you believe in self-appointed authority,

As I specifically noted, I don't believe in self-authority.

Many players dispute various rules in the BBB, and many players accept the FAQs.

While this statement is true, from a pure rules perspective, players *must* abide by the rules in the BBB even if they dispute them, but players are under NO obliligation to accept FAQs even of other players choose to.

So, what's your basis for accepting the rules written in the BGB?

tegeus-Cromis wrote:JohnHwang, would you then consider a BA list from the GW site illegal, despite GW stating explicitly that it is official?

If you recall, the BA list was printed in WD as a *Codex*.

Rules-wise, as a printed Codex, players are required to accept it.

Imriel wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:If the Flowchart were in the rulebook, that would be one thing. Otherwise, it's no different that a FAQ claiming authority.

But the Rulebook only recognizes the Codices as valid.

So your saying its ok for the Rule book to claim to be authorative,

By definition, the Rulebook *is* authoritative - there is no claim process necessary.

but it isn't ok for anything else published by the same people to do it.

By definition (BBB, p.4), Codices published by the same people are also authoritative, as specifically granted by the BBB.

The only reason the BGB is official is because the people who created the game say it is, and those same people say that the FAQs are official , there for one is as authorative as the other, you can't claim to be able to ignore one without equally trivializing the other.

That is where you are totally wrong. Not everything is published to the same standards. What's next? Claiming Necromunda is Official?

When you start with a 40k rules chain, you start with the BBB. The BBB specifies Codices as sources for specialized rules. So those are also valid. Once you step outside the defined rules chain (which only goes as far as the Codices, as far as I can tell), at that point, it's all up to mutual agreement.

The BBB does NOT mention FAQs or Droolzboyz or flowcharts. So those are merely guidance, but non-binding. If I don't want to abide by them, you can't make me if I don't agree.

OTOH, if something is in the BBB (or, by reference, a Codex), I am forced to follow it.

JohnHwangDD wrote:If you recall, the BA list was printed in WD as a *Codex*.

Rules-wise, as a printed Codex, players are required to accept it.

So a player with a White Dwarf magazine has a legal list, while the player beside him with the PDF from the GW website doesn't?

Yeah, that'll fly.

When you start with a 40k rules chain, you start with the BBB. The BBB specifies Codices as sources for specialized rules. So those are also valid. Once you step outside the defined rules chain (which only goes as far as the Codices, as far as I can tell), at that point, it's all up to mutual agreement.

So errata (which GW habitually include in their FAQs) is likewise not valid?

If I don't want to abide by them, you can't make me if I don't agree.

If you stomp your foot when you say it, it makes it more authorative.