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.

Whilst the idea that GW could possibly be wrong with its own FAQs is frankly absurd Gwar! does have a point that GW's attitude towards the FAQs leaves much to be desired.

Whilst changing RaW as a clarification is fine with me as RaW isn't (and never will be, until GW employ Lawyers as rules writers and even then probably not) = The Rules. They should have the FAQs at least deitted by the writer of the book in question if not outright written by them.

The impact of the ruling on the Tyranid FAQ that effects don't effect units embarked on vehicles is massive as Eldar Farseers sat in Wave Serpents have now become immune to anti-pysker powers (as have libbies in Rhinos and Landraiders). Likewise the furious charge debacle of eth Space Wolf codex.

Whilst I don't beleive GW should really endeavour to make RaW = The Rules, they should endeavour to make the rules clear and ensure the FAQs follow the original intent of the rule by the individual writer.

The FAQs should be more indepth (compare the size of INATs to GWs official one even discounting new FAQs not yet out) and they should clear things up rather than raise further questions. They should be at least deitted by the original writer and should be gone over by the entire design team before publishment to try to catch knock on effects and ensure clarity wherre ever possible.

I play with a regular group most of the time. That weighs heavily on my experience; most of us work together and we discuss the game regularly.

The FLGS we frequent also has a large group of regulars who we all play rather often.

All of us will defer to rules (and suggestions) made by GW, this includes the FAQs despite the fact that they are slow to appear, dubious in intent, and inclined to second guess themselves.

We will reference other sources, INAT for example, when things fall entirely out of the norm. However, as I said I play with generally the same group, "the norm" is really hard to avoid. We discuss and decide many random and assinine theoretical rulings (moot, even!) that it is noteworthy when something "new" occurs. I suspect many people really fall into that.

All this comes down to the idea that, to me, almost any problems with the game that occur at the table will occur when playing a relative stranger. Having text (not your own) to back your opinion is really the point. I find it utterly unfortunate that the currently released FAQs cause more issues than they solve. /

I use the GW FAQs. I was pleased with the most recent BA and Tyranids FAQs as many of the questions were answered with a yes or no.

Do I disagree with some rulings? Sure. Thunderwolf cavalry should be T4(5) IMO -- but it's better to use the Codex + FAQ than it is to rules-lawyer every damn game. It's the very slowness of the FAQ process that makes GW rulings useful -- with the exception of the Space Wolves countercharge error, they don't produce them frequently. Which means the player base can absorb them without having to check their site every day.

INAT, on the other hand, has every reason to produce a FAQ as quickly as possible. Adepticon demands rules clarifications and changes for its gamers, and the faster that INAT rules on a new codex, the more likely that people will view its FAQ as authoritative. That's also why it will not contradict official GW material. I disagree with INAT more frequently due to its over-precious citations -- often referencing their own rules changes -- and the tournament's need to provide some answer, any answer, to rules questions before GW comments. [ c.f. Doom of Malan'tai vs. common sense ] A quick FAQ cycle, sometimes as rapid as six weeks between releases, is necessary for INAT's purposes but leads to problems.

Other house FAQs and RAW divination are for a third audience -- die-hard rules lawyers and WAAC gamers. Many of their posts begin with the innocent "hey guys did you ever notice" and spiral into a semantic cloud-cuckoo land where typos are counted as rules. I had thought that many of the RAW proponents had dishonored themselves by running for the German and French PDFs of the Daemonhunters Codex before the final GW statement on that problem. Unfortunately, trolls have Regenerate. Where INAT has to satisfy a group of tournament players, and GW has to promote its product range, other FAQ producers are playing to their ego and the crowd at Dakka.

I use the GW FAQs always, the INAT docs only during tourneys at the FLGS, and other opinions not at all. While I can be a competitive gamer ... if you reach the point where nothing can be decided by a 4+, you're playing the wrong game. If your army list depends 100% on rules interpretation, you fail.

I follow the GW FAQs unless there is an apparent mistake, such as the Deff Dread attacks issue.

After that, I go with the INAT FAQ. I may not always agree with it, but I think the crew putting it together knows the game better than me.

I'm a rather large supporter of GW FAQs in their rules dispute function. Less from a RAW perspective and more from the functional RAI.

We use the erratas but if we've ever had an argument over rules we would just take a vote on how it works after both sides explaining why it works that way. Instant house rule that is much more appealing than the GW FAQ's.

I wish there was an "i play for fun and am liable to puch rules monkeys in the face" option. Number 1 was the closest thing i found

I use the GW FAQs and Erratas but I ignore some of the stupid FAQ(Not Errata) stuff, like, "Doom of Malant´tai is leeching your soul, quick, jump behind a bush and you will fell better!"

I use GW FAQs. The way I see it, if the company that makes the game and write the rules, writes a FAQ for the game they make, then they are right. Weather or not it makes much sense, its theirs to do whatever they want with it.

Gwar! wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:So, you cherry pick, you take the bits you like and ignore the rest of it.

No, I use the bits that follow the rules. An FAQ that ignores Clear RaW should not be an FAQ, it should be an Errata.

You did notice that each page of the Tyranid and Blood Angel "Updates" are labeled as Errata, right?

Gwar! wrote:Yes, they stole portions of the SW FAQ from me. Yes, I did e-mail them.

^^ And this is hilarious to me.

puma713 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:So, you cherry pick, you take the bits you like and ignore the rest of it.

No, I use the bits that follow the rules. An FAQ that ignores Clear RaW should not be an FAQ, it should be an Errata.

You did notice that each page of the Tyranid and Blood Angel "Updates" are labeled as Errata, right?

You did notice that large swaths of both are labeled as "FAQs", clearly and distinctly from the section labeled "Errata", right?

Why would you post something so pointless?

I didn't like any of the options. I use FAQs if they make sense. If they don't make sense, then I go by the core rules. As my dad use to say, "If it looks stupid, then it probably is stupid. So don't do it."

I take the path of least resistance. Quite frankly, winning the game is just not that important. Even if I know I am right the arguing part is just not worth it. (except against my brother who gets no mercy). I use the FAQ's from GW to help my understanding and they answer some questions. The INAT is a more comprehensive document that addresses issues in functional manner. I like them both.

Also just so some know. There is life outside of 40k. There really is.

Gorkamorka wrote:

puma713 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:So, you cherry pick, you take the bits you like and ignore the rest of it.

No, I use the bits that follow the rules. An FAQ that ignores Clear RaW should not be an FAQ, it should be an Errata.

You did notice that each page of the Tyranid and Blood Angel "Updates" are labeled as Errata, right?

Why would you post something so pointless?

Because Gwar!, being the RAW purist that he is, can't deny the fact that each page of the Errata/FAQ is labeled as an Errata, no matter which "large swath of. . yadda yadda yadda", at the bottom. Each page is a Warhammer 40,000: Errata. Unless he's saying that the RAI is that they didn't mean to put Warhammer 40,000: Errata on each page, but just the one that contains actual Errata. But I know he doesn't believe in RAI, so, for him, the entire thing is an Errata.

Which is still off the topic.


The discussion is about whether or not people use them, not on whether or not they are official. Let's keep it on track, folks.

I haven't used them or seen anyone use them. I play at a GW shop, and usually when people have a rules question and we can't decide amongst ourselves we just call the red shirt over. He hears the question, takes a minute to read the rules and then just tells us what he thinks we should do. *shrugs* It's simple and everyone seems to roll with it XD.

And if somone had a sensible well thought out argument, that contradicted the 'Nameless Lacky' and didn't wan tto do what they were told by this RS... You'd burn him at the stake?

My regular gaming group and I play by the rulebook and codices. If someone presented the group with the relevant updated info, on GW Codex rules- we'd probably 'go with the flow'.

We number about 20-25 regulars a month, and it never really has come up. YMMV. We also have used rules discussions on Dakka to clarify certain issues. Common sense prevails!

Now mind, I mostly play EPIC at this point, which has its own FAQs, but also have played 40K for many years.

FAQs are used. If someone came in and said an FAQ isn't official they would be: 1) laughed at; and 2) after laughed at, looked strangely upon, and if they continued to insist such, wouold have difficulty getting games.

I too have never had a person in Real Life (TM) make such asinine statements, that they didn't apply.

The poll is slightly flawed to get an honest opinion.

The first option implies that the GW FAQ is not accruate, yet it claims the others are accruate.

Like I said before I use GW FAQs, but mainly my group just uses common sense if it gets to a misunderstanding. Finding a common ground without blowing your lid off works amazingly if you try.

In the absence of a statement by GW that some other document is "official" I use their FAQ.
Do I have issues with some of the rulings? Yes.
Do I think they are stupid/lazy for farming out their errata/FAQ? H**l yes. They supposedly have access to the people that wrote the rules and can ask what the intention of the author was. INAT and the others take a vote.
Do I use them? Yes. They're where everybody with internet access can find them and can print a copy to have in their hot little hands.

I prefer the INAT FAQ, simply because it is more complete. Unlike some other people, I don't think too many of the rules presented in the INAT are changes or totally outrageous; any time someone points what they believe is a 'blatant rules change' out to me, I can see the reasoning behind the author's thoughts and why that particular option is chosen. Even when I disagree with it on some counts, I think the value is in having a *consistent* resolution to issues; so that if the issue comes up in many games, the result of the argument does not drastically change the outcome or strategy needed (see deff rollas and ramming)
Likewise, I think that the INAT council is correct for changing their rulings to the ones used by GW. Most gamers will use the GW FAQs and treat them as canon; it the interest of consistency, the GW rulings are followed.

Unfortunately, as most people realise, GW rules aren't tight enough nor written in specific enough language to be interpreted the same by all people, so I believe a strict RAW reading of the rules isn't going to sort out all issues. Neither is 'common sense', as the rules are a complete abstraction. An FAQ is needed; the GW ones are neither comprehensive or absolute; and in this situation I turn to the INAT FAQ because I believe it has a fairly comprehensive range of well written, well reasoned answers.
Trasvi

jbunny wrote:The poll is slightly flawed to get an honest opinion.

The first option implies that the GW FAQ is not accruate, yet it claims the others are accruate.

It doesn't really matter.

The poll is about what people are actually doing, not what they think they might do if someone persuaded them something or other.

My group uses the GW FAQ's in their entirety. If we ever come across an issue that we can't solve by civil debate, then we usually default to the INAT.

Voted for the first one, since the INAT FAQ has been incorrect so many times.

I use the INET FAQ, which IMO since they deffer to GWs FAQs means i use those to. Its more important to have solid answers to rules bases questions so you can play the game rather than argue about it.