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.

**Orkeosaurus**

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.

What you put the emphasis on changes the meaning, somewhat.

If I'm playing a pick up game against someone who I don't have a common set of house rules with, the FAQs are what I'm using, because that's what the FAQs were written for.

**Gwar!**

willydstyle wrote: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.

Oh I agree. The problem comes when people use "RaI" to, in lieu of a word I am not allowed to say, "gain an unfair advantage which is a breach of the rules laid down in the rulebooks."

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orkeosaurus wrote:What you put the emphasis on changes the meaning, somewhat.

If I'm playing a pick up game against someone who I don't have a common set of house rules with, the FAQs are what I'm using, because that's what the FAQs were written for.

Useful != T3H LAW.

**augustus5**

After listening to Gwar tell us that the FAQs do not equal oficial rules many many times, most of us understand that BTW, I think in most situations if a question comes up in a game and you hapen to have an FAQ print out handy most people will allow that to settle the arguement.

I don't believe that FAQ rulings should stop a group of people from playing strict RAW or playing by any sort of house rules they do choose, but in most tourneys or in most gaming settings I've played in, I've never had someone argue against using FAQs as rules.

Sometimes it seems that the community here in YMDC are not even oen to discussing the value of RAI arguements. Even so far as to completely discount FAQs. While that is fine and dandy, I don't think it represents the 40k community very well. IME most people, when trying to make a rules call will at least discuss the merits of RAI and use it in coming up with an answer.

I also disagree with the notion that most people who argue RAI do so only to try and gain an unfair advantage.

**Gwar!**

augustus5 wrote:I also disagree with the notion that most people who argue RAI do so only to try and gain an unfair advantage.

I never said most people, but I have found in my Experience that the most vocal of the group are doing so.

**Orkeosaurus**

Gwar! wrote:Useful != T3H LAW.

There is no law.

Only the strong survive.

**willydstyle**

I AM the law!

**Gwar!**

willydstyle wrote:I AM the law!

No, I am!

**Nurglitch**

C'est la vie.

**Spellbound**

I just don't like the FAQ because it talks about the valkyrie access points, then THROWS it out the window by saying you can embark/disembark from ANYWHERE on the base, even the flippin' front of the model. Way to go, GW.

**crazypsyko666**

Maybe we should get yakface in here, since he writes some of them. Somebody call up yakface?

**Spellbound**

Yakface's rules still are labelled often as "clarification", which is basically RAI. Gwar doesn't ACTUALLY want a fun game using clear rules. He just wants rules for the sake of having rules.

**willydstyle**

Spellbound wrote:Yakface's rules still are labelled often as "clarification", which is basically RAI. Gwar doesn't ACTUALLY want a fun game using clear rules. He just wants rules for the sake of having rules.

Point 1: many of the "clarifications" on the INAT FAQ are actually straight-up rules changes.

Point 2: Assuming you know someone based on their online persona, and using it as a basis to judge their character IRL is pretty close to a personal attack...

**Pika_power**

Personally, I treat the disclaimer on the FAQs like Gwar treats page 2.

Make sense?

**insaniak**

Gwar! wrote:
willydstyle wrote:I AM the law!

No, I am!

I am the law, and so's my wife.

What was this thread about, again? Oh yeah, FAQ's being RAI.

I would agree that they're a source of current RAI. They're not necessarily a source of what was intended when a given book was originally written, since they often change their minds between version of FAQs. For whatever difference that makes.

I'm happy to continue to use them as a tool for dispute resolution in pick-up games. I'm also happy to continue to ignore them in home games when I don't agree with a specific ruling.

**Gwar!**

willydstyle wrote:
Spellbound wrote:Yakface's rules still are labelled often as "clarification", which is basically RAI. Gwar doesn't ACTUALLY want a fun game using clear rules. He just wants rules for the sake of having rules.

Point 1: many of the "clarifications" on the INAT FAQ are actually straight-up rules changes.

Point 2: Assuming you know someone based on their online persona, and using it as a basis to judge their character IRL is pretty close to a personal attack...

I agree on both points.

Personal attacks notwithstanding, I want a fun game with clear rules. It is UNCLEAR rules that make the game unfun. I would much rather be able to go "Right lets play" instead of spending an hour beforehand making sure we settle every rules dispute that might come up mid game which may or may not be the same as it was last time I played.

**imweasel**

Gwar! wrote:Personal attacks notwithstanding, I want a fun game with clear rules. It is UNCLEAR rules that make the game unfun. I would much rather be able to go "Right lets play" instead of spending an hour beforehand making sure we settle every rules dispute that might come up mid game which may or may not be the same as it was last time I played.

Which is exactly why GW is a bunch of schmucks for how they not only write their rules and faq's, but also with the frequency in which they do that. They take months to write some half-assed faq's that most folks could do better in 30 minutes that won't answer serious questions that gamers have.

We all then have no choice but to come to a forum like dakka, sometime a joke in itself, to hash this out.

Then we all get stuck with building lists that will work differently at different venues in the same series of tournaments, like 'ard boyz.

It's just smacks of irresponsiblity and incompetence.

**Spellbound**

I miss gaming in Japan. EVERY rule was handled quite well.

"I think it's this way"

"It could also be read this way"

*roll dice*

DONE

They did this with pretty much any dispute, ever. The only time it really had to be hashed out was when it affected army list construction, and since very few people actually tried to find loopholes and spam lists were incredibly unpopular, that too was rarely an issue.

**NecronLord3**

IMO, its an oxymoron for the FAQ to be anything but RAI. If it is RAW, then it needs no FAQ. If RAW works contradictory to RAI it has to be put in an FAQ.

imweasel wrote:
Gwar! wrote:Personal attacks notwithstanding, I want a fun game with clear rules. It is UNCLEAR rules that make the game unfun. I would much rather be able to go "Right lets play" instead of spending an hour beforehand making sure we settle every rules dispute that might come up mid game which may or may not be the same as it was last time I played.

Which is exactly why GW is a bunch of schmucks for how they not only write their rules and faq's, but also with the frequency in which they do that. They take months to write some half-assed faq's that most folks could do better in 30 minutes that won't answer serious questions that gamers have.

We all then have no choice but to come to a forum like dakka, sometime a joke in itself, to hash this out.

Then we all get stuck with building lists that will work differently at different venues in the same series of tournaments, like 'ard boyz.

It's just smacks of irresponsiblity and incompetence.

I agree with you on all points. This is why I wish the community as a whole would get behind projects like the INATFAQ. That way if 99% of venues are doing things one way, then the other 1% will basically fall inline.

**willydstyle**

If the INAT FAQ were based more on the rules and less on how someone thinks the rules *should* be, I would be more online with accepting it as a standard.

**Gwar!**

willydstyle wrote:If the INAT FAQ were based more on the rules and less on how someone thinks the rules *should* be, I would be more online with accepting it as a standard.

Same here. As much as I admit the INAT FAQ is a good piece of work, it does have far, FAR too many rules changed disguised as clarifications.

**kartofelkopf**

And here we run into what is commonly known as making the Perfect the enemy of the Good.

The INAT FAQ is going to have rulings that you disagree with. RAW (which inevitably turns into RAI-- even RAW purists have to make judgment calls on gray areas) is going to have rulings you will disagree with. GW's FAQs will have rulings you disagree with.

The point being made is having support for one standard FAQ set would benefit the hobby as a whole. If GW was more proactive in releasing FAQs, that would (obviously) be the standard. Since they're not, the INAT is the next best thing.

Railing against a standardised approach to FAQs because you disagree with one or two particular rulings is only going to increase the likelihood that you use your own house rules-- because if you can't acknowledge the legitimacy of a FAQs, your house will be the only place you can play where you won't encounter "cheaters"

**Slackermagee**

Agreed on INAT faq. With regards to the GW FAQ (sorry for jumping in late here), while it is a set of studio house rules, they're the house rules of the people who make and play the game for a living. I think they might have gone through enough scenarios of "oh feth, the valk is awkwardly positioned near the objective again..." to figure out the fairest way for it to work.

**willydstyle**

kartofelkopf wrote:And here we run into what is commonly known as making the Perfect the enemy of the Good.

The INAT FAQ is going to have rulings that you disagree with. RAW (which inevitably turns into RAI-- even RAW purists have to make judgment calls on gray areas) is going to have rulings you will disagree with. GW's FAQs will have rulings you disagree with.

The point being made is having support for one standard FAQ set would benefit the hobby as a whole. If GW was more proactive in releasing FAQs, that would (obviously) be the standard. Since they're not, the INAT is the next best thing.

Railing against a standardised approach to FAQs because you disagree with one or two particular rulings is only going to increase the likelihood that you use your own house rules-- because if you can't acknowledge the legitimacy of a FAQs, your house will be the only place you can play where you won't encounter "cheaters"

The problem with the INAT FAQ is that it makes rules changes on things that are not gray areas, and it makes a lot of them.

**imweasel**

NecronLord3 wrote:I agree with you on all points. This is why I wish the community as a whole would get behind projects like the INATFAQ. That way if 99% of venues are doing things one way, then the other 1% will basically fall inline.

Except I lost all respect for the inatfaq when they change a rule (deff rolla) on the premise of what they think gw is going to 'officially' rule on.

Now I am impressed with the amount of work and the timelyness compared to gw, but still...

There is a lot in the inatfaq that leaves to be desired. I suppose it would be the lesser of two evils...

**unistoo**

I think this thread has wandered a bit from its original point: that RAI in the FAQ should be 'admissible evidence' when debating the RAW.

I don't think it should - the RAW is the RAW, and a RAW argument is often a theoretical excercise and in no way applicable to the Rules As Played.

In a RAP question, then yes, bring in the corollary FAQs to help hash out an answer, but RAW debates should remain BGB, Codex and relevant Errata. I think a lot of the problems arise from people who have been playing it one way (and indeed the same way that many/most people play it) feel that their way of playing is somehow devalued when it is pointed out that that is not what the rules actually say, when this is not the case at all.

So, if RAW is usually theoretical, wy bother discussing it at all? Two reasons - Firstly, I know that my understanding of the rules has been hugely improved by debating in several RAW threads, because it forces you to look at the rules as they are, shorn of the pre-conceptions of playing 10+ years of other editions. And secondly (and more importantly), that a good understanding of the RAW in a given situation makes it much easier to then decide on a RAP solution to a problem.

So, while the FAQs are a valuable source of information for the RAP, and for agreeing on rules issues in pickup games, I think that's where their applicability should be kept.

EDIT: Clarity.

**Scott-S6**

imweasel wrote:
Which is exactly why GW is a bunch of schmucks for how they not only write their rules and faq's, but also with the frequency in which they do that. They take months to write some half-assed faq's that most folks could do better in 30 minutes that won't answer serious questions that gamers have.

My count on the IG FAQ:

no-one asked*: 3
YMDC was right: 4
Me and Gwar! were right**: 1
Totally contradicts the rules***: 3

*because it was obvious
**astropath/ootf stacking
***one of these is the valk ruling which was going to contradict the rules whatever they did unless they decided to make the valk completely crap.

ETA So, it's an equal split between things that don't need clarifying, things that take a RAW standpoint and things that completely contradict the rules.

Slight bias towards RAW but not by much.

This would suggest that they basically pull the FAQ out of their posteriors.

**Gwar!**

Scott-S6 wrote:My count on the IG FAQ:

no-one asked*: 3
YMDC was right: 4
Me and Gwar! were right**: 1
Totally contradicts the rules***: 3

*because it was obvious
**astropath/ootf stacking
***one of these is the valk ruling which was going to contradict the rules whatever they did unless they decided to make the valk completely crap.

ETA So, it's an equal split between things that don't need clarifying, things that take a RAW standpoint and things that completely contradict the rules.

Slight bias towards RAW but not by much.

This would suggest that they basically pull the FAQ out of their posteriors.

A very excellent summery. It is a shame that GW tend to put questions no-one asks in FAQs (See: Codex: Salamanders)

**Scott-S6**

What was your opinion of the penal legion gunslingers FRFSRF faq?

The obvious choices were that they fired as per the FRFSRF (since it specifies exactly how they shoot and an assault2 lasgun is still a lasgun) or that they didn't get to use it all since an assault2 lasgun is not a lasgun anymore.

The first interpretation is pretty obvious and I don't recall any signficant debate on it. Instead they've given this bizarre half-way house interpretation.

ETA, I notice this FAQ doesn't have a Yakface credit...

**Gwar!**

Scott-S6 wrote:What was your opinion of the penal legion gunslingers FRFSRF faq?

The obvious choices were that they fired as per the FRFSRF (since it specifies exactly how they shoot and an assault2 lasgun is still a lasgun) or that they didn't get to use it all since an assault2 lasgun is not a lasgun anymore.

The first interpretation is pretty obvious and I don't recall any signficant debate on it. Instead they've given this bizarre half-way house interpretation.

I too fail to recall being involved in any sort of debate on this. It might have been while I was on "vacation", but in any case I would have ruled that FRF!SRF! on Penal Lasguns results in 3 Shots at 12" and 2 at 24", just as the order says. They also would not have been able to fire past 12" with this order if they had moved (not that it matters, you would just not give them the order if they were firing at 24"). Not quite sure how the FAQ changes this though, it does state "There is no bonus if they are more than 12"", which means they cannot move and fire 24" with FRFSRF (i.e. RaW). Oh... gak, an FAQ Backing up RaW? My Mind just Assploded!

ETA, I notice this FAQ doesn't have a Yakface credit...

Which is why it is a poor FAQ

**insaniak**

Scott-S6 wrote:ETA, I notice this FAQ doesn't have a Yakface credit...

They haven't done so since that initial batch that came out at the same time and all had it.