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.

Gwar! wrote:

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.

okay I have successfully debunked the myth that GW stated their FAQs are not official, they never said that.

They (GW) states their FAQs are Studio House Rules as a figure of speech. I know you do not like their FAQs but to me it's just plain wrong to mislead people like you do so often.

Yeah, funny how a majority still think they are not official.

A very small majority and I'm sure a lot more people will vote today.

Insaniak said himself he does not use the FAQs because they don't suit his needs. To me that attitude rightly sums up people in general who do not regard FAQs as official.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:A very small majority and I'm sure a lot more people will vote today.

Yeah I can so see how 21% is a "very small majority".

Why would GW even bother if they aren't official. They are the correct interpretations of hard to understand rules. If someone can't understand a rule and someone tells them how it works how can that not be official? Saying FAQs are to be ignored at your own discretion is akin to saying "I don't know what the counterattack rule does, so I'll assume it makes all my models S10 T10 W10 I10 A10."
Unfortunately that's not how it works. FAQ are there to tell you how it actually is.

Also of note is the DH FAQ in which is says GKLR have power of the machine spirit and assault vehicle or something. Does this mean they actually do not and are contrary to all other LR in the Imperium? If the FAQ are unofficial then there would be no point in putting that in there, as people would either ignore it anyway or be already using these rules for the LR. Maybe GW doesn't say expressly that they are official but most people would support that they are.

GW are a business, they don't go around spending $$$ on an FAQ simply because they are bored.

There's just no way to take the FAQs seriously. They're an equal mixture of reinforcing what the RAW says, completely contradicting the rules and confirming the rules in cases where it's perfectly clear to begin with. Occasionally they manage to do two at once and contradict rules that were perfectly clear.

They're useful as a dispute solver somtimes simply because they're impartial common ground. Other than that, waste of space.

Madgod wrote:Why would GW even bother if they aren't official. They are the correct interpretations of hard to understand rules.

So what about the ones that are incorrect interpretations of very easy to understand rules?

Afrikan Blonde wrote:Insaniak said himself he does not use the FAQs because they don't suit his needs.

Er... no, I didn't.

I said I do use them. I just disregard specific FAQ answers that I don't agree are the best way to play the game. (And no, that has nothing to do with whether or not the answer I dislike directly benefits my own army. I play too many different armies for that sort of nonsense to be in any way useful... )


To me, whether or not the FAQs are 'official' is far less important than whether the way they say to play the game is the way that the group I game with think the game will be the most fun.

So, as long as the FAQs give sensible answers, we'll go along with them just fine. But we feel no qualms whatsoever about following the designers' stated intention that the players should feel free to modify the game to suit themselves.

They are yes, as they are rules clarifications etc, its annoying as they usually get printed in a white dwarf and count as official even though anyone with any sense wouldn't buy it even for novelty toilet paper

This was backed up years ago by a staff member in a GW who informed people that yes they were.

insaniak wrote:
I said I do use them. I just disregard specific FAQ answers that I don't agree are the best way to play the game. (And no, that has nothing to do with whether or not the answer I dislike directly benefits my own army. I play too many different armies for that sort of nonsense to be in any way useful... )

So, as long as the FAQs give sensible answers, we'll go along with them just fine.

Oh snap, this is what I do!

I follow the FAQs where they either:
Reinforce the RaW
Clarify genuinely unclear Rules

I do not follow them when:
They directly ignore Clear (albeit "unintended") RaW outside of the Errata.

Regardless of this, they are still house rules, and are not official by any means. If they were official, GW would have said "These are official Clarifications" instead of "These be house rules".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vermillion wrote:This was backed up years ago by a staff member in a GW who informed people that yes they were.

Wow, a Staff member in GW? Amazing! I also am a Staff member in GW. So is my Dog. I am also the Queen of Canada!

What does it matter how "official" FAQs are?
If you are playing people you know, you can argue amongst yourselves (preferably pre-game) about how to play (we do this all the time, even with games that have no FAQ! And we change rules, make house rules, scenarios, etc.)
Tournaments will produce their own rules.
Most people who can find the FAQ are capable of asking their opponent how they want to play.
If you don't like your opponents way of playing, you have 3 options. Play it his way. Get him to play it your way. Don't play. If it is someone you will play again, you can say "we play it your way this time, my way next time, OK?"
If it is someone you won't play again, it doesn't matter much.

Madgod wrote:Also of note is the DH FAQ in which is says GKLR have power of the machine spirit and assault vehicle or something. Does this mean they actually do not and are contrary to all other LR in the Imperium?

I'd say that's a pretty bad example since by that FAQ's own interpretation only the heavy support selection of GKLR get PotMS and Assault Ramps where the Inquisition dedicated transport ones from the same book do not, "contrary to all other LR in the Imperium".

I'm with the majority of people, FAQs are by no means official. They can definitely be seen as "Well, this is one way to interpret this rule, what do you think?" More often than not, yes, it makes sense and is an agreeable way to proceed with whatever ruling came into question and in which case the game continues. That does not make it an official ruling, it does give an interpretation that most people can agree upon and it does not come from a biased party (either of the players or a favorites-playing TO).

I treat them as official, unless they are found to contradict something or be in error. As Gwar! has pointed out before, the Ork FAQ for additional DCCWs on a Deff Dread is wrong, since it ignores the benefit of the additional DCCW the model starts with.

The purpose of an FAQ is to clarify, amend and fix up a piece of the official rules which was badly written enough in the first place to need fixing. As such, it must necessarily have the force of a rule. Whatever GW say, an FAQ list is nothing to do with house rules, which are local changes made for a variety of reasons, including to fix broken stuff, and are called house rules or ground rules.

GW though, do not admit that their rules are flawed in that way, nor do they recognise or admit that their FAQs are often just as flawed. That is why they bill the FAQs as vague suggestions.

It's a nonsense attitude which simply perpetuates the rotten arguments about rule interpretation.

Exactly and very well said.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:Exactly and very well said.

And yet still people, despite you "debunking" this "myth", still clearly think the FAQ's ara a steaming pile. Glad to know most Dakkaites know what they are doing

Greetings,

I am curious to know how it is 'official' is being used in this post?

Are you using it to mean 'comes from GW'?

Or are you using it to mean 'counts as rules'?

My vote does depend on what meaning you're proscribing to your poll.

Gwar! wrote:

Afrikan Blonde wrote:Exactly and very well said.

And yet still people, despite you "debunking" this "myth", still clearly think the FAQ's ara a steaming pile. Glad to know most Dakkaites know what they are doing

Isn't that what killkrazy said?

House rules are "local changes made for a variety of reasons, including to fix broken stuff"

FAQs are " to clarify, amend and fix up a piece of the official rules which was badly written enough in the first place to need fixing"

Sounds like pretty much the same thing to me.

He went on to say "GW though, do not admit that their rules are flawed in that way, nor do they recognise or admit that their FAQs are often just as flawed. That is why they bill the FAQs as vague suggestions. " I'd say that could be shortened to "the FAQs are a steaming pile".

Thor665 wrote:Greetings,

I am curious to know how it is 'official' is being used in this post?

Are you using it to mean 'comes from GW'?

Or are you using it to mean 'counts as rules'?

My vote does depend on what meaning you're proscribing to your poll.

This!

He means "Counts as Rules".

Even I know they come from GW ffs.

That would have been my presumption - but to claim he has 'debunked' that they aren't official suggests that neither proposition is how he's defining official since both are equally obviously true. Still, I don't care to vote until I'm certain about the question being asked.

I think everybody knows that they aren't official rulings since GW says so on the download page...

However, I voted for "Yes" because all the tournaments that I've been to use the FAQs as if they where (official rullings), so I might as well use them for my friendly games as well.

Gwar! wrote:

Afrikan Blonde wrote:Exactly and very well said.

And yet still people, despite you "debunking" this "myth", still clearly think the FAQ's ara a steaming pile. Glad to know most Dakkaites know what they are doing

Most people will tell you that YMDC is a mere shadow of its former self. I have heard it said this is the forum where "TFG come to BS the rules". To see that so many clearly see the FAQs as official is telling.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Afrikan Blonde wrote:Exactly and very well said.

And yet still people, despite you "debunking" this "myth", still clearly think the FAQ's ara a steaming pile. Glad to know most Dakkaites know what they are doing

Most people will tell you that YMDC is a mere shadow of its former self. I have heard it said this is the forum where "TFG come to BS the rules". To see that so many clearly see the FAQs as official is telling.

Now, I am kind enough to provide citations when I make claims, please also be so kind.

Kilkrazy wrote:The purpose of an FAQ is to clarify, amend and fix up a piece of the official rules which was badly written enough in the first place to need fixing. As such, it must necessarily have the force of a rule. Whatever GW say, an FAQ list is nothing to do with house rules, which are local changes made for a variety of reasons, including to fix broken stuff, and are called house rules or ground rules.

GW though, do not admit that their rules are flawed in that way, nor do they recognise or admit that their FAQs are often just as flawed. That is why they bill the FAQs as vague suggestions.

It's a nonsense attitude which simply perpetuates the rotten arguments about rule interpretation.

Agreed. Frankly one can argue a default that that screams RAI from GW, and hence would be binding as well. However, I've not had anyone in the Real World (TM) make the claim to not use the GW FAQ, or even worse only a part of them. The latter positions you as potentially TFG as you're cherry picking.

Afrikan Blonde wrote: To see that so many clearly see the FAQs as official is telling.

Ignoring the inlflamatory bit, I see the numbers (including the waivering answers) as 85 - 69, against thinking they are official, as of the time you wrote that. So perhaps I am missing your point.

That said, I think the FAQ include some official rulings. They are labeled Errata.
The rest I see as officially GW written house rules, for clarification in case what is already written is contentious within your gaming group.

Less useful than tourney specific rules, but more widely available.
This makes them distinctly popular, but still moot.

I bring a list of questions and issues with me to any game that I play versus a player I do not know, or have not discussed rules with before. This list includes items covered in the FAQs, but not items covered in Errata. ymmv

shrug

Frazzled wrote:Agreed. Frankly one can argue a default that that screams RAI from GW, and hence would be binding as well. However, I've not had anyone in the Real World (TM) make the claim to not use the GW FAQ, or even worse only a part of them. The latter positions you as potentially TFG as you're cherry picking.

I only use part, and I am not cherry picking. I use the bits that actually clarify unclear rules. The parts the directly contradict clear RaW are the bits I ignore.

I think this thread has done its purpose. Enough people have pointed out that GW themselves stated that the FAQs are not official rulings in any way, simply their interpretation of how a rule should be played. If you choose to agree with every aspect of the FAQs then by all means do so, it's not like we're going to hunt you down. I would just be prepared to come across the potential opponent that disagrees with how the FAQs interpret a particular rule and know that your opponent is quite possibly 100% correct in their interpretation.

Gwar! wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Agreed. Frankly one can argue a default that that screams RAI from GW, and hence would be binding as well. However, I've not had anyone in the Real World (TM) make the claim to not use the GW FAQ, or even worse only a part of them. The latter positions you as potentially TFG as you're cherry picking.

I only use part, and I am not cherry picking. I use the bits that actually clarify unclear rules. The parts the directly contradict clear RaW are the bits I ignore.

Incorrect. You are using the parts that you believe 'actually clarify unclear rules." You are indeed cherry picking against your self defined analysis of what is RAW or not and using them only in support of that.

Thats cherry picking. Either / or is not. Anything deviating from that is, by its very nature, perceptual cherry picking.

The entire legal industry makes its bones on particular viewings of RAI/RAW. What is RAW is always in the eye of the beerholder.


"The Vorlons have a saying, 'the truth is a three edged sword. Your truth, my truth, and what lies in between.' "

Frazzled wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Agreed. Frankly one can argue a default that that screams RAI from GW, and hence would be binding as well. However, I've not had anyone in the Real World (TM) make the claim to not use the GW FAQ, or even worse only a part of them. The latter positions you as potentially TFG as you're cherry picking.

I only use part, and I am not cherry picking. I use the bits that actually clarify unclear rules. The parts the directly contradict clear RaW are the bits I ignore.

Incorrect. You are using the parts that you believe 'actually clarify unclear rules." You are indeed cherry picking against your self defined analysis of what is RAW or not and using them only in support of that.

Thats cherry picking. Either / or is not. Anything deviating from that is, by its very nature, perceptual cherry picking.

My thoughts exactly. Thanks for saving me some typing, Frazzled. The presumption by a player that they know how something works over the guys that wrote the game to the point of claiming the player is correct where the writers aren't has always been a ridiculous concept to me.

If you see the FAQ as wrong because it answers with RAI, consider that maybe the game isn't meant to function as a pure RAW exercise. That would make the FAQ answer completely correct. As I have said before, RAW purism is doing it wrong. It isn't the standard the game is created around.