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.

The FAQ represents the decisions of the creators of the game on how to resolve potential grey areas. Frankly if the people that made the game choose to roll in a particular direction then that's a pretty good direction to roll in.

FAQ represents their answers to our questions. They fix actual misprints with errata, they clarify with FAQs.

The included 'oh, it's just the way we play it' is included as part of the catch all play it the way you want attitude that makes all rules non-concrete as printed on the inside of the BGB.

Given the attitude that holds dominance in GWs writing and gaming style, that of flexibility and casual and mutual agreed resolution, I find people's dogged insistance on the minutiae of the wording to be completely at odds with the game, both in spirit and playability.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:The FAQ represents the decisions of the creators of the game on how to resolve potential grey areas. Frankly if the people that made the game choose to roll in a particular direction then that's a pretty good direction to roll in.

FAQ represents their answers to our questions. They fix actual misprints with errata, they clarify with FAQs.

The included 'oh, it's just the way we play it' is included as part of the catch all play it the way you want attitude that makes all rules non-concrete as printed on the inside of the BGB.

Given the attitude that holds dominance in GWs writing and gaming style, that of flexibility and casual and mutual agreed resolution, I find people's dogged insistance on the minutiae of the wording to be completely at odds with the game, both in spirit and playability.

Has it not occurred to you that perhaps GW's attitude is wrong?

Gwar! wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:The FAQ represents the decisions of the creators of the game on how to resolve potential grey areas. Frankly if the people that made the game choose to roll in a particular direction then that's a pretty good direction to roll in.

FAQ represents their answers to our questions. They fix actual misprints with errata, they clarify with FAQs.

The included 'oh, it's just the way we play it' is included as part of the catch all play it the way you want attitude that makes all rules non-concrete as printed on the inside of the BGB.

Given the attitude that holds dominance in GWs writing and gaming style, that of flexibility and casual and mutual agreed resolution, I find people's dogged insistance on the minutiae of the wording to be completely at odds with the game, both in spirit and playability.

Has it not occurred to you that perhaps GW's attitude is wrong?

Not as many times as I've considered yours wrong.

kartofelkopf wrote:
TO their credit, the IG FAQ doesn't suck.

Really? My summary of the IG FAQ was:
no-one asked*: 3
YMDC was right: 4
Me and Gwar! were right**: 1
Totally contradicts the rules***: 3

That's even mixture of pointless answers, RAW answers and answers that outright violate the rules.

Sadly, I agree with you that this was one of the better FAQs.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:The included 'oh, it's just the way we play it' is included as part of the catch all play it the way you want attitude that makes all rules non-concrete as printed on the inside of the BGB.

Except that because they have that rule printed in the rulebook it would apply to any "rules" they provided in the FAQ. I still have no idea why their FAQ, like most other games I've played, doesn't just count as official rule clarifications/changes.

They specifically go out of their way to clarify that what the FAQ is not; is rules. I see no problem with reacting to it, then, differently from the rules.

Gwar! wrote:Has it not occurred to you that perhaps GW's attitude is wrong?

They made the flippin game dude.

FAQs are how the rule in question should be played. The people that made the game, made the rules, and make the minis just told you how you are supposed to interpret a rule.

What dont you get?

PanamaG wrote:What dont you get?

Why people think it is stone inscribed rules when the game makers themselves have stated "Yeah, btw these FAQ's don't actually mean anything."

PanamaG wrote:FAQs are how the rule in question should be played. The people that made the game, made the rules, and make the minis just told you how you are supposed to interpret a rule.

Apart from the times they had to ask yakface and co to do them because they were too lazy (and with all due credit, they are the only FAQ's that are well written).

PanamaG wrote:They made the flippin game dude.

No, they didn't. I highly doubt anyone related to the creation of Warhammer 40k still works at Games Workshop, let alone has any sort of influence as to what goes on. Of course, I do not know for sure, so feel free to enlighten me if this is the case.

I don't think this should continue as another Gwar against the world thread.

Gwar is correct in stating that even GW says that FAQs are merely a "house rules" type of reference. He is entitled to play that way if he chooses.

However, in most gaming environments, at least the ones I've played in, the FAQs are always respected as a source to solve a rules dispute. I would say a vast majority of people would respect the answer coming from an FAQ. Does that make it an offiecial rule? No, but there is little point in arguing over that merit as that is how it will be played 95% of the time.

So wait a minute. The FAQ's aren't official. Did I get that right?

So when did GW start excluding the FAQ's from their tourney's? When did the FAQ's become inadmisable for use in RTT's by the direction of GW?

It seems to me that there are two camps here.

Camp 1): The FAQ's are official; the phrase in question is being taken out of context.

Camp 2): The FAQ's are not official; the phrase in question is a clear directive ot that effect.

Did I get that right?

grizgrin wrote:It seems to me that there are two camps here.

Camp 1): The FAQ's are official; the phrase in question is being taken out of context.

Camp 2): The FAQ's are not official; the phrase in question is a clear directive ot that effect.

Did I get that right?

The phrase in question is from the GW site FAQ and Errata section;

The Errata have the same level of 'authority' as the main rules, as they effectively modify the published material. ...

The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. ...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 ....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 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.

So as I read and interpret it;

Errata=rules

FAQs = ...something that is not rules, we call them house rules and suggest them for arbitration in tournaments but they are not rules. (roll a die)

You can, of course, decide for yourself how you choose to interpret the above info they provide on their FAQs.

Interesting. I've been playing 40k for years and the FAQ's, before this were always canon. Never heard of someone ignoring them, or a tourney "throwing them out". Things change. How long has this been up? And, also, does anyone have any answers for my questions about how GW have been using the FAQ's with regard to their tourneys and the RTT's? gak, does GW even have any officially sponsored tourneys anymore?

Well this has derailed rather quickly.


Personally I don't like the GW faqs as really its just their house rules also its not written by a designer I dont believe.


IE the person who originally wrote th codex doesnt write the faqs hell he may play completely different rules.


Who knows.


Also, the GW faqs generally take RAI over RAW.


Look at the Astropath thing there isnt any way other than interpreting it as a +2 hell there is even another codex that does the same thing.


The GW faqs are not even FAQS.


Have you read some of the bizzaro land questions?


The FAQ frequently ask questions is rarely that. Hell there doesn't seem to be any correlation between the rulezboys and the faq writers.


Some guy just goes well its time to make a FAQ lets release it ; Kay.


Thats it.

grizgrin wrote:Interesting. I've been playing 40k for years and the FAQ's, before this were always canon. Never heard of someone ignoring them, or a tourney "throwing them out". Things change. How long has this been up? And, also, does anyone have any answers for my questions about how GW have been using the FAQ's with regard to their tourneys and the RTT's? gak, does GW even have any officially sponsored tourneys anymore?

The writeup on the Errata/FAQs page is dated November of 2008 - I can't speak for if it was up prior to that as I got back into the game about that point. I have played at some RTTs that reference some of the FAQ, but not all, and those that totally use it as written. The INAT FAQ seems overall more popular at the events I've played at. To the best of my awareness 'official' GW events use the FAQ - though currently official GW Con competitive play is on a slight hiatus of unknown duration (hopefully just for a reorg, but in the usual GW way, mum's the word). I do believe across the pond and down under they still have GW sanctioned tournies.

Thor665 wrote: The INAT FAQ seems overall more popular at the events I've played at.

The authors of the INAT FAQ, like all reasonable people, defer to the GW FAQs.

Hollismason wrote:Well this has derailed rather quickly.
...

Glad to be of service.

Thor665 wrote:

grizgrin wrote:Interesting. I've been playing 40k for years and the FAQ's, before this were always canon. Never heard of someone ignoring them, or a tourney "throwing them out". Things change. How long has this been up? And, also, does anyone have any answers for my questions about how GW have been using the FAQ's with regard to their tourneys and the RTT's? gak, does GW even have any officially sponsored tourneys anymore?

The writeup on the Errata/FAQs page is dated November of 2008 - I can't speak for if it was up prior to that as I got back into the game about that point. I have played at some RTTs that reference some of the FAQ, but not all, and those that totally use it as written. The INAT FAQ seems overall more popular at the events I've played at. To the best of my awareness 'official' GW events use the FAQ - though currently official GW Con competitive play is on a slight hiatus of unknown duration (hopefully just for a reorg, but in the usual GW way, mum's the word). I do believe across the pond and down under they still have GW sanctioned tournies.

So, you are stating that GW is claiming that the FAQ's are optional/mutable, and yet they are canon for their events? Essentialy, they are the way GW plays the game, and enforces their officially sactioned events to play?

olympia wrote:

Thor665 wrote: The INAT FAQ seems overall more popular at the events I've played at.

The authors of the INAT FAQ, like all reasonable people, defer to the GW FAQs.

I would have thought that the INAT FAQ would have been written with the GW FAQ's as canon, but I've never read the thing so....

To my knowledge, only non-special character Hqs can take cybork bodies

I consider the FAQs as official and always have. To me people who dispute them want more leeway as to how they personally interpret the rules.

G

grizgrin wrote:

olympia wrote:

Thor665 wrote: The INAT FAQ seems overall more popular at the events I've played at.

The authors of the INAT FAQ, like all reasonable people, defer to the GW FAQs.

I would have thought that the INAT FAQ would have been written with the GW FAQ's as canon, but I've never read the thing so....

@olympia - so you're saying because I believe the FAQ does not = rules then I'm unreasonable? GW also believes (and openly states) the FAQ doesn't = rules. Are they unreasonable? Please stick to shooting down my position with a bit more focus and less the person holding said opinion (after all, how am I to defend my point if the attack on said standpoint is that I'm unreasonable? Just show how I'm unreasonable factually and then you'll be winning the argument.)

@grizgrin - The INAT FAQ is written so as not to address the GW FAQ with the then presupposition that probably anyone using INAT will use the GW (certainly for their specific con they do). At my local shop we use INAT paired with a modified GW FAQ. I noted it was more popular because (strangely) it is better written and meshes better with the rules as compared to GW's FAQ in the opinion of myself and many of the people I play with.

I would never quote from INAT, GW FAQ, or my shop's local house rule FAQ if I was asked what the rules are. (I would quote from Errata, and I'd potentially quote from all sources if I was asked how I play it)

Green Blow Fly wrote:I consider the FAQs as official and always have. To me people who dispute them want more leeway as to how they personally interpret the rules.

G

It is perfectly fine to consider them official - It is equally perfectly fine to not consider them official (and I feel more supported by GW is the latter interpretation). I, personally, don't do it for leeway - I do it because GW refuses to call them official, which annoys me.

Edit - to clean up a bad quote box.

All major tournaments accept the GW FAQs as writ; likewise with the INAT authors. There are a few very prolific posters who pollute this forum with RAW fundamentalism: to wit that they would refuse to play someone who brought a GW FAQ to settle a rules dispute. Simply put thor, rejecting the GW FAQs is not only unreasonable it's absurd, a totally untenable position as was outlined by many people in this thread, notable D'Ork.

Rejecting the FAQs is not untenable as a position when they tell you you may do so in the preface to all FAQs.

Here is a summary of my view of GW FAQs:
"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)."

As opposed to thoughts on the Errata (which is included in the same document):
"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!). . . 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."

shrug

nosferatu1001 wrote:Rejecting the FAQs is not untenable as a position when they tell you you may do so in the preface to all FAQs.

"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)."

See, this as far as I am reading it, is saying that there is a grey area without a clear answer, so the rule book didn't cover the eventuality...ergo there cannot be a RAW solution...ergo using the FAQ rather than reaching a mutual accord would seem an eminently sensible choice. The FAQ is the suggested solution and as stated there cannot be a solution with a 'higher' authority on the matter since it is written that there is no right or wrong answer.

The FAQ is the educated suggested resolution that most of the warhammer/40k playing world chooses to use.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Rejecting the FAQs is not untenable as a position when they tell you you may do so in the preface to all FAQs.

QFT.

Gwar! wrote:What dont you get?

Why people think it is stone inscribed rules when the game makers themselves have stated "Yeah, btw these FAQ's don't actually mean anything."

PanamaG wrote:When have they said that? Quote it. I doubt its as "these are completely pointless" as you are making them out to sound. You just want the rules to go your way

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.

House Rules are not the actual Rules.

Gwar! wrote:No, they didn't. I highly doubt anyone related to the creation of Warhammer 40k still works at Games Workshop, let alone has any sort of influence as to what goes on. Of course, I do not know for sure, so feel free to enlighten me if this is the case.

Okay MAKE the game. Stop nitpicking every post word for word to get what you want out of them just like you do the rules. So once again I am right in the real world, but not in gwarland where everything is INTERPRETED the way you want it to (and then call it "as written")

Oh, I am sorry, I thought this was Rules as Written Forum. Please accept a thousand apologies. The fact is, you can use the FAQ if you want, I don't care, but to pass them off as "This is what the rules say" is just plain wrong.

I see your point of view but no once again it isn't "just plain wrong" like every other opinion that differes from your opinions.

Have fun using your artificial worldview at a tournament.

PanamaG wrote:Have fun using your artificial worldview at a tournament.

Like the ones I run?

Gwar I am totally gonna start a RAI army you start the RAW then we will fight and go out for beer.

olympia wrote:All major tournaments accept the GW FAQs as writ; likewise with the INAT authors. There are a few very prolific posters who pollute this forum with RAW fundamentalism: to wit that they would refuse to play someone who brought a GW FAQ to settle a rules dispute. Simply put thor, rejecting the GW FAQs is not only unreasonable it's absurd, a totally untenable position as was outlined by many people in this thread, notable D'Ork.

I don't believe that I've said I would refuse to play someone using the GW FAQs (to be honest, I play using them) however, that doesn't change the fact of whether or not they are rules and whether or not they should be quoted as rules.

GW, the makers of said FAQs, openly claim that they are not rules.

I agree with GW.

Apparently that makes me fundamentalist in my belief of how the rules are played...and I guess since I want to agree with how GW writes those rules (including how they choose to use the FAQs) then, yes, that makes me and GW fundamentalists about the rules. I am comfortable being thought of as unreasonable and absurd in this belief, but would prefer it if you didn't tell me I was, since factually I believe I am standing on very solid ground and I also find it kind of rude and hurtful to tell me I'm unreasonable for going with GW's interpretation of their own FAQs.

And now you get to be harangued like Gwar!, lol.