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 40K rules are subject to varying interpretations. People argue about which is correct. This slows down games.

The GW FAQ and Errata documents are released by GW to clarify ambiguous rules and avoid arguments.

While GW themselves say their FAQs are only their "in house" rules, there may be value in a third party document to resolve argument.

A good example is the INAT FAQ published for use at Adepticon. Please note that the INAT documents are regularly amended to incorporate the GW documents.

For the purpose of this survey, the Errata are included with the FAQs. That is because they are part of the same physical document.

I have the INAT FAQ, although if I can't be bothered to go and get it, I will just come to an agreement with my opponent over whatever rule is under discussion.

From what I've seen, the GW FAQ's don't address a lot of the issues and even when they do, they often just make a hash of it and don't actually clear anything up.

That being said, I'm more of an "owner of models" than a gamer, so perhaps I am being a bit too harsh on them.

The INAT FAQ defers to the GW FAQ, immediately that it's released.

We use them in all cases as the final adjudication in our games and I've never, in 20 years of wargaming, ever encountered someone face to face who thought they were 'wrong'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:A good example is the INAT FAQ published for use at Adepticon.

For the purpose of this survey, the Errata are included with the FAQs.

INAT auto-defer to the GW FAQ as soon as it's out.

If Errata is included alongside the FAQ in your poll, then we must vote to support them, the Errata directly affects the codex/rulebook writing.

This Poll isn't really that sufficient.

I use the GW FAQs, when they actually clarify unclear RaW.

When the RaW is clear, an FAQ changing that is, for lack of a better word, wrong.

If they want to change RaW, use an Errata.

As for the INAT FAQ, I don't use it, simply because 90% of it is Rules Changes disguised as Clarifications. If they manned up and called Rules Changes Rules Changes, and became a Self Contained Document (i.e. Ignoring the Idiotic GW FAQs that GW steal from other people anyway), and replaced the GW content with answers that actually make sense and follow the rules, then I might use it.

Note: This is not Spam, this is Criticism of GW. Please don't suspend me for "spam" again, because it isn't.

Gwar! wrote:I use the GW FAQs, when they actually clarify unclear RaW.

When the RaW is clear, an FAQ changing that is, for lack of a better word, wrong.

If they want to change RaW, use an Errata.

As for the INAT FAQ, I don't use it, simply because 90% of it is Rules Changes disguised as Clarifications. If they manned up and called Rules Changes Rules Changes, and became a Self Contained Document (i.e. Ignoring the Idiot GW FAQs that GW steal from other people anyway), then I might use it.

Note: This is not Spam, this is Criticism of GW. Please don't suspend me for "spam" again, because it isn't.

Yes it is.

So you admit to using the FAQs when they fit within a definition you've set, according to your standards...

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

The FAQ issued by the company that writes the rules can't be 'wrong' in any broad sense of the word. They make the rules, it's their FAQ to change. You can disagree with their outcome, but that outcome isn't wrong. Stop endlessly chanting this bs.

There has never been a document nor even a mention of Rules As Written by the creators of the game.

GW cannot deviate from something they never created in writing the rules for the game that they did.

Your logic is flawed.

And yes, you are spamming, because we all know if the FAQs had supported your own unofficial documents you would have A) touted them as 'finally, GW sees sense' and then B) But they stole them from me!!

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.

The FAQ issued by the company that writes the rules can't be 'wrong' in any broad sense of the word. They make the rules, it's their FAQ to change. You can disagree with their outcome, but that outcome isn't wrong. Stop endlessly chanting this bs.

Nice to see the attacks coming in again. What about that "truce" you offered? That not good anymore?

And tell me this, when a Company doesn't bother writing their own FAQs anymore, and instead steals them from other people, can you with a straight face say you respect them anymore?

As I have said before, I don't even play 40k anymore, mainly because I have no-one local to play with, but also because of the way GW are destroying the game. I love 40k, I just hate what GW are doing to it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:And yes, you are spamming, because we all know if the FAQs had supported your own unofficial documents you would have A) touted them as 'finally, GW sees sense' and then B) But they stole them from me!!

Well, I hadn't mentioned them stealing anything from me, but since you mention it...

Yes, they stole portions of the SW FAQ from me. Yes, I did e-mail them. I got a thinly veiled legal threat in return. Can you see now why I am not all that keen to be nice to GW?

And No, I wouldn't be touting them as "GW Finally sees sense", I would be touting them as "GW are following the rules that the wrote!"

Wow. Just wow.

I use the GW FAQ first and foremost, and the INAT when something comes up that it doesn't cover and an agreement can't be reached in our gaming group. I don't see how the people that write the rules could be incorrect when clarifying them for the gamers that use them... In fact the very idea is preposterous in my opinion.

this is a horribly worded poll. all the answers there are all critical of the GW FAQs; what answer should someone choose if they actually LIKE the GW faqs? the best answer for that person is that they use them despite sucking...

i also think you should add another choice in that you use the GW faqs AND INAT; i realize that the INAT faq is based on the GW ones but not everyone knows that. that would be the answer i choose.

Gwar! wrote:Nice to see the attacks coming in again. What about that "truce" you offered? That not good anymore?

And tell me this, when a Company doesn't bother writing their own FAQs anymore, and instead steals them from other people, can you with a straight face say you respect them anymore?

As I have said before, I don't even play 40k anymore, mainly because I have no-one local to play with, but also because of the way GW are destroying the game. I love 40k, I just hate what GW are doing to it.
Well, I hadn't mentioned them stealing anything from me, but since you mention it...
Yes, they stole portions of the SW FAQ from me. Yes, I did e-mail them. I got a thinly veiled legal threat in return. Can you see now why I am not all that keen to be nice to GW?
And No, I wouldn't be touting them as "GW Finally sees sense", I would be touting them as "GW are following the rules that the wrote!"

I believe the truce I offered you dissolved when you imploded so unpleasantly all over two threads about the blood angels and tyranid FAQs. I don't take kindly to repeated insults. How was your suspension btw? Did you learn anything from it? Appears not.

I'm not sure how you can substantiate your allegations of theft, but you seem adamant.. Now, answer me this, why is it that when they used part of the INAT FAQ, they had no problems thanking Yakface and co for their hard work but when it came to your FAQ they had to send in the ninjas and rob you... Seems a disconnect, no?

Your ideology has been proven to be out of touch with the thinking behind the game, on several occasions. Your answer to this isn't to try and understand why or even consider adapting to it, instead you point at the creators of the game and shout 'your doing it wrong'. They can't be doing it wrong, it's their bloody game.

Finally, you claim you don't play 40k, you /ragequit, so why are you still engaging in this?

warboss wrote:this is a horribly worded poll. all the answers there are all critical of the GW FAQs; what answer should someone choose if they actually LIKE the GW faqs? the best answer for that person is that they use them despite sucking...

i also think you should add another choice in that you use the GW faqs AND INAT; i realize that the INAT faq is based on the GW ones but not everyone knows that. that would be the answer i choose.

I kind of agree with that, warboss. I have no problem at all with GW's FAQs.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I believe the truce I offered you dissolved when you imploded so unpleasantly all over two threads about the blood angels and tyranid FAQs. I don't take kindly to repeated insults. How was your suspension btw? Did you learn anything from it? Appears not.

Huh? You were the one insulting me.And I was suspended for "spam", nothing else.

I'm not sure how you can substantiate your allegations of theft, but you seem adamant.. Now, answer me this, why is it that when they used part of the INAT FAQ, they had no problems thanking Yakface and co for their hard work but when it came to your FAQ they had to send in the ninjas and rob you... Seems a disconnect, no?

Maybe it's because GW got a lot of Flak (and quite rightly so) for not bothering to write their own FAQs?

Your ideology has been proven to be out of touch with the thinking behind the game, on several occasions. Your answer to this isn't to try and understand why or even consider adapting to it, instead you point at the creators of the game and shout 'your doing it wrong'. They can't be doing it wrong, it's their bloody game.

Funny, Not a single person (IIRC) who "Created" 40k had a part in 5th edition.

Finally, you claim you don't play 40k, you /ragequit, so why are you still engaging in this?

Are you deaf? I love 40k, I just hate what GW are doing to it. I'll continue to answer posts and answer rules questions.

Monster Rain wrote: Wow. Just wow.

I use the GW FAQ first and foremost, and the INAT when something comes up that it doesn't cover and an agreement can't be reached in our gaming group. I don't see how the people that write the rules could be incorrect when clarifying them for the gamers that use them... In fact the very idea is preposterous in my opinion.

Because the people who write the faqs, ARE NOT THE PEOPLE WHO WRITE THE CODICES.

Wheres option E. I use common sense and RAW

kill dem stunties wrote:Wheres option E. I use common sense and RAW

lol, common sense and RAW don't always correlate unfortunately. check out the funny RAW thread here...

Which is where common sense comes into play ....

Whatever you say Gwar, your answers here have proven my point. You're out of sync with the intent of the company and you no longer play the game. Notions of being 'more right' about the game than the company that makes it is borderline psychosis.

I'll drop this and let the thread get back on track.

tata.

kill dem stunties wrote:Because the people who write the faqs, ARE NOT THE PEOPLE WHO WRITE THE CODICES.

You don't say.

But in any case, the Trolls of Dakka have once again brought another thread to it's knees and somehow been able to blame me.

I'll leave this thread with my views posted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Whatever you say Gwar, your answers here have proven my point. You're out of sync with the intent of the company and you no longer play the game. Notions of being 'more right' about the game than the company that makes it is borderline psychosis.

I'll drop this and let the thread get back on track.

tata.

I see, so now you are accusing me of having a mental illness?

kill dem stunties wrote:Because the people who write the faqs, ARE NOT THE PEOPLE WHO WRITE THE CODICES.

They are part of the same design studio though, all these have to be approved you know.

I use the GW errata & FAQs. Everyone I game with considers them to be official.

G

kill dem stunties wrote:

Monster Rain wrote: Wow. Just wow.

I use the GW FAQ first and foremost, and the INAT when something comes up that it doesn't cover and an agreement can't be reached in our gaming group. I don't see how the people that write the rules could be incorrect when clarifying them for the gamers that use them... In fact the very idea is preposterous in my opinion.

Because the people who write the faqs, ARE NOT THE PEOPLE WHO WRITE THE CODICES.

Wheres option E. I use common sense and RAW

I have to occasionally remind myself that I don't take this game as seriously as some people.

When I referred to "the people that write the rules" I meant the whoever puts the official GW FAQ on their website in this context. They're all part of the same company, yes? Must we be so pedantic?

MGS and Gwar:

I like you both. You both have valuable things to say. For the sake of Dakka, please put each other on ignore since you can't refrain from insulting each other. I was getting trolled so badly that I got ordered by a mod to put him on ignore because I couldn't ignore the barbs without defending myself - you two need to do the same.

Please!

^ Wise words!

Also, this poll isn't a debate in which two sides try to convince an audience to vote for them.

It is a survey to find out what people are actually doing in the games they play.

Fair enough KK, sorry that some people had to ruin your thread!

As I said though, I didn't vote as "Use the FAQs when the actually clarify rules, not change them (as that needs an Errata)" isn't an option!

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."

That's exactly what cherry picking is...

Would this argument exist if they had written the word "Errata" on the top of their documents instead of "FAQ"?
GW has made FAQ that are actually (technically) are erratas, this is nothing new.

For instance my favorite army is Black Templar, a codex known for out of date everythings inside it.

Under the old editions units would take a leadership test to not shoot the closest enemy. It has been removed with the current edition. The Black Templar codex has a rule called "Kill Them All!" This rule requires that all Black Templar units forced to take the test have -1 LD.

Now RAW it never says take the test. So you have -1 LD to a test that does not exist. However the BT FAQ (and it is the FAQ as there is no errata section) says that Black Templar still test and have -1 LD. No where NEAR RAW. So why does this annoy you now? This has happened for years and suddenly it's a problem?


And FYI 40k may have died out where you play, but it's booming here. I work at my local store and we have double the players we did a year ago (giving us over 20). GW is more likely to destroy their player base by increasing prices than they are from what you call "destroying the game." Your local situation with everyone quitting is not an accurate description for gaming over the country. Neither is my gaming situation but I submit it for the purposes of NOT EVERYONE IS QUITTING!


My take on the FAQs, I like them a lot. They settle arguments between players and make games keep moving. Absolutely no one wants to play 40k when it devolves into arguments that grind the game to a halt. And no one new wants to play a game when they see players bickering back and forth.

TakamineG 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."

Would this argument exist if they had written the word "Errata" on the top of their documents instead of "FAQ"?
GW has made FAQ that are actually (technically) are erratas, this is nothing new.

No, it wouldn't. Because then they would actually be official unassailable rules.
The FAQs themselves say they are not official errata, and are house rules. That's the entire point, and the entire basis of the whole argument from either side.

I'm going to take GWAR's side on this one. The FAQ writers really need to get the rules straight, understand the underlying issues a lot better, communicate with the codex writers, actually update at anything approaching a reasonable rate, make really really important and simple issues (like Shield on vehicles in the new BA faq) errata... etc.
The laziness and apparent disregard for the community the writers blatantly display really makes me lose a lot of respect for the company and the documents, in addition to the document itself telling us it's not at all official and shouldn't be taken that way. They really could make the game much more playable and closer to airtight with a week's work, and they don't because... they're lazy? They don't care? They purposefully leave the game written badly while also pushing the tournament scene? Hell if I know.

I have a lot more respect for FAQs like the INAT or those by Gwar, if only because it appears that there's actual comprehensive effort towards improving the game involved.

I'll play with the GW faqs, certainly, but if the question is what I 'think' of them in most cases... not much. And as there's no poll option that I really feel captures that, put me down for 'other'.

TakamineG, No, it would not be a problem if GW took responsibility and said "These are official hard changes".

As it is, the FAQs are meaningless by their own admission.

And no, it's not "suddenly" a problem, it's been a problem for a good 10 years.

@Gorkamorka: </Brofist>

I will repeat what I posted earlier.

This survey is not about whether the GW docs are official.

It is about whether people use them.

I use the GW faq's whether I agree that they represent exactly the denotations of the text or not.

It is foolish to criticize GW on this forum - I highly doubt they have people reading these forums for ways to improve their game. Instead, it just comes across as argument for the sake of it, and for some people (i.e Gwar) self-aggrandizement.

The title of the thread should more correctly reflect its purpose, which is to determine not what we think of them but whether or not they are used. Perhaps the misleading title has something to do with its hijacking into irrelevant and boring whining.

Gwar! wrote:And no, it's not "suddenly" a problem, it's been a problem for a good 10 years.

I never said it was suddenly a problem. I said it was nothing new to have FAQs called FAQs that are really erratas. And if these rules are unofficial anyway, how can they destroy the game with rules that are not really rules?

Gorkamorka wrote:No, it wouldn't. Because then they would actually be official unassailable rules.
The FAQs themselves say they are not official errata, and are house rules. That's the entire point, and the entire basis of the whole argument from either side.

I've never said they are law and but I see your point. If both players do not like the FAQs, then do not use them.


I suppose I should be more clear: I like these FAQs because of what they do, not how they do it. There are issues with GW's FAQs and they land on the strange side of rulings sometimes. So the methods suck, but they do help settle some arguments and keep games moving. (I swear a week ago if I heard the "No you're BA LR doesn't get the cover save" "YES IT DOES!" argument one more time.........) So I will keep using their FAQs to settle arguments and debates.

No one ever accused GW of making good rules.

Rules changing or not, my friends and I all use the GW FAQs. We've never had a problem with the new/altered way a rule worked post-FAQ. Since we're all pretty darn competitive, it's hard to justify the validity of what essentially amounts to a fan-made FAQ. So for the sake of all of us keeping our cool, we just agreed to use only GW-issued rulesets.

I just use the rulebooks, not errata's or FAQ's. Mostly because I'm too lazy to dig them up and carry them around