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.

Heya. As we all know, the 40k Rulebook FAQ was updated to version 1.1 today. At the beginning of it is a new blurb:

Each update is split into three sections: Errata, Amendments, and ‘Frequently Asked Questions’. The Errata corrects any mistakes in the book, while the Amendments bring the book up to date with the latest version of the rules. The Frequently Asked Questions (or ‘FAQ’) section answers commonly asked questions about the rules. Although you can mark corrections directly in your army book, this is by no means necessary – just keep a copy of the update with your army book.

There is no mention of FAQ sections being merely "official house rules" - the FAQ answers are real answers. Can we rejoice and no longer have to worry about players springing the "FAQs aren't rules" answer, and all finally play the same game?

I believe Gwar will fight you on this

As a side note, our gaming group, and related communities use the FAQ's as hard rules and have always done so.

They removed the clause regarding house rules, it's official - no question about it now.

The clause wasn't there on older FAQs - it's on the webpage preceding the list of FAQs. That page is still there, but an official rulebook update would overrule statement written two years ago outside of any FAQ/Update. I don't expect the webpage to last all that much longer, anyway.

I say this is a good thing and FINALLY a step in the right direction... This game's rules are too damn murky as it is without having to worry about the FAQ not being 'official'. There's a reason I stopped playing 40k, and it wasn't the prices. (ok, maybe they played a small role... )

This shouldn't be a big deal to the 'houserulers', they can still deny the official rules and do it their own way all they damn well please. On the rare occasions when I play 40k it's usually a game type of my very own creation, cleverly titled 'The Variant'.
(For those curious, it involves picking any points value [typically under 500] and both players [or all; 3 or more player games are common] building a list with those points, with no Force Org restrictions, and occasionally no codex restrictions either. Then each player rolls for deployment order, and EVERYTHING comes in via deepstrike during the deployment phase. Then Sieze the Initiative rolls happen to see if the turn order changes. There is no max limit of turns, you play until total annihilation or surrender. It's hella fun, try it some time!)

The document (currently) is labled as "WARHAMMER 40,000 RULEBOOK" that's good enough for me to consider any information contained to have the same weight as the rule book.

IT DOES NOT MATTER and it has never mattered.

Both players are always, always going to have to agree on how to play a rule. In order to play a game. So if one player doesn't agree with a GW FAQ ruling and 'refuses' to play with it and the other player does want to play with that ruling...what happens? The game doesn't get played unless both players come to some sort of agreement. If they can't come to an agreement (like in a tournament) then a judge will have to make a decision.

So regardless of whether a GW FAQ is labled 'official' or 'unofficial' it has absolutely no bearing on anything. Either both players agree to use the clarifications (or not) and the game gets played, or both players disagree on the ruling and then the game grinds to a halt until one player gives in or a third party makes a ruling.


There is no need to discuss it, no need to worry about it, FAQs are what they are regardless of what is written about them.

phyrephly wrote:I believe Gwar will fight you on this

As a side note, our gaming group, and related communities use the FAQ's as hard rules and have always done so.

+1 (miiillliion!)

By that logic, the official rules in the rulebook don't matter either then, as long as someone else doesn't agree with them...
Ami doin it rite?
/sarcasm

Hard rules. No doubt.

I'm ok with a current rules update,

PS I disagree with jetbikes,

DakkaDakka wrote:

Oh hey, can you link it please? I'm too lazy to google it...

Che-Vito wrote:
Sounds like someone is getting a little defensive when it seems like INAT could be useless with a bit more work from GW on their own, official FAQs.

???

First off, how does what I said have anything to do with the INAT? We've always treated GW's FAQs as 'official' because every tournament I've ever heard of does (and the point of the INAT is to be a tournament FAQ). The INAT has always (and will always) be very, very unofficial, in that everybody knows it is just a fan creation to be used by those Tournament Organizers that find it useful isntead of writing their own FAQs.

Second, I would love nothing more then to have GW make the INAT FAQ completely pointless by frequently updating their FAQs...that's always been my dream and was the whole point of starting the INAT project in the first place (to make a FAQ that GW could take questions from...which they have many times including this latest update)!

So, yeah...I don't know where the idea that I'm defensive about the INAT comes from, because the idea that can be made redundant sounds utterly fantastic to me!

MasterDRD wrote:By that logic, the official rules in the rulebook don't matter either then, as long as someone else doesn't agree with them...
Ami doin it rite?
/sarcasm

That's TMIR...

yakface wrote:
because the idea that can be made redundant sounds utterly fantastic to me!

Be, like, all 'yaaaay' and stuff if GW offered better non-product customer support.

yakface wrote:
IT DOES NOT MATTER and it has never mattered.

Both players are always, always going to have to agree on how to play a rule. In order to play a game. So if one player doesn't agree with a GW FAQ ruling and 'refuses' to play with it and the other player does want to play with that ruling...what happens? The game doesn't get played unless both players come to some sort of agreement. If they can't come to an agreement (like in a tournament) then a judge will have to make a decision.

So regardless of whether a GW FAQ is labled 'official' or 'unofficial' it has absolutely no bearing on anything. Either both players agree to use the clarifications (or not) and the game gets played, or both players disagree on the ruling and then the game grinds to a halt until one player gives in or a third party makes a ruling.


There is no need to discuss it, no need to worry about it, FAQs are what they are regardless of what is written about them.

While I agree that in one sense the statement is meaningless - no one needs GW's permission to play by alternate rules, so there was no reason for GW to grant it. The statement, however, did matter in that it obstructed easily solving rules questions. Just look back at this forum back in May or so, before the status of GW FAQs as "hard" rules was made a tenant of YMDC. In every thread that involved an hotly contested FAQ answer, arguments were had because of the fact that FAQ answers were "soft" and didn't count. This served only to confuse players not as familiar with the minutia of the rules.

Many players around the world ignored the FAQs because of the "soft" status, regardless of any opinion they had about the situation in question. Just yesterday I commented a battle report where Defensive Grenades were used to negate the extra attack granted from a successful Counter-Attack test, something that breaks both RAW and the Space Wolf FAQ. I referenced the FAQ in my comment, as it certainly is easier to post an explicit answer than to explain exactly how two completely separate rules interact. I was hand waved away because their club doesn't use FAQs, and hostile told not to continue the subject. This attitude wouldn't exist if not for that blurb on the 2008 "Shrine of Knowledge" web page.

It's ridiculous that a companies FAQ on their own game should be regarded as unofficial by default. I can't think of any other system that has done such a thing. Imagine if in the "Building Your Army" section of the rulebook said that the points costs in a codex were merely guidelines - the game would be pandemonium. If a group of players think the game would be more fun if a rule were different and play as such, that's fine - I'd even say good for the hobby. Rules updates being rejected for no good reason is bad for the hobby, and that is why retracting that "meaningless" rule is a meaningful thing.

yakface wrote:So, yeah...I don't know where the idea that I'm defensive about the INAT comes from, because the idea that can be made redundant sounds utterly fantastic to me!

Che-vito really doesn't like the INAT FAQ, and will manufacture all manner of reasons to make a post about it.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:
While I agree that in one sense the statement is meaningless - no one needs GW's permission to play by alternate rules, so there was no reason for GW to grant it. The statement, however, did matter in that it obstructed easily solving rules questions. Just look back at this forum back in May or so, before the status of GW FAQs as "hard" rules was made a tenant of YMDC. In every thread that involved an hotly contested FAQ answer, arguments were had because of the fact that FAQ answers were "soft" and didn't count. This served only to confuse players not as familiar with the minutia of the rules.

Many players around the world ignored the FAQs because of the "soft" status, regardless of any opinion they had about the situation in question. Just yesterday I commented a battle report where Defensive Grenades were used to negate the extra attack granted from a successful Counter-Attack test, something that breaks both RAW and the Space Wolf FAQ. I referenced the FAQ in my comment, as it certainly is easier to post an explicit answer than to explain exactly how two completely separate rules interact. I was hand waved away because their club doesn't use FAQs, and hostile told not to continue the subject. This attitude wouldn't exist if not for that blurb on the 2008 "Shrine of Knowledge" web page.

It's ridiculous that a companies FAQ on their own game should be regarded as unofficial by default. I can't think of any other system that has done such a thing. Imagine if in the "Building Your Army" section of the rulebook said that the points costs in a codex were merely guidelines - the game would be pandemonium. If a group of players think the game would be more fun if a rule were different and play as such, that's fine - I'd even say good for the hobby. Rules updates being rejected for no good reason is bad for the hobby, and that is why retracting that "meaningless" rule is a meaningful thing.

I know exactly what you're saying, but I think perhaps you over-estimate the level that people 'ignore' GW FAQs. I'm sure there are some gaming groups out there that do (you quoted a situation involving at least one), but the vast majority of players and every tournament I've ever heard of use GW's FAQs.

In reality, even those gaming groups that claim they are 'not using' GW's FAQs actually are...they follow the rulings in the FAQs they agree with and ignore the ones they don't. I really don't think this is any different from what gaming groups did before the 'shrine of knowledge' blurb went up. I know many situations where gaming groups or even tournaments ignored certain FAQ rulings because they thought they were stupid or went against their interpretation of the rules.

And to be fair, that's precisely what the Shrine of Knowledge blurb is saying:

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.

Really read what it says. It says that the FAQs are useful for pick-up and tournament games where players don't have a common set of house-rules. In their own gaming group, if players want to come up with something different, then they should do so.

So what that actually says if you read it, is that, by default, the FAQs are used if players don't have a common agreement to play another way.

I think the only thing GW is trying to get across with this section is that you shouldn't browbeat your opponent to play with the FAQ rulings if you both think they're stupid. That may sound redundant since players can *always* institute any rule they want if they both agree, but more and more players seem to forget the fact that games can and should be altered by the players as they see fit. That theme has been a battle that GW has been fighting as their games have become more commonplace, and the 'Shrine of Knowledge' blurb is just one more volley in that war.

For example, you said: "Imagine if in the "Building Your Army" section of the rulebook said that the points costs in a codex were merely guidelines - the game would be pandemonium." I think that's precisely the issue! The building your army sections of the rulebook ARE guidelines that players can break at their whim, just like any and every other rule in the rulebook!

Players continue to get caught up in ridiculous levels of rules heirarchy. We create forums and argue about rules. We create 115 page FAQs, etc, etc, etc. But in GW's mind I think they're trying to reiterate that this is a GAME and players can adapt the game as they see fit...even if that fact is essentially redundant to most of us.


Now, most certainly there has been more online arguments online about this topic since the 'Shrine of Knowledge' blurb was posted by GW, but honestly I think that's mainly just the fact that people enjoy arguing on the internet and will use any excuse to do so.

The Shrine page still states that the FAQs are houserules. It would be much better if they simply removed that page....

Just for the sake of argument, the biggest tourny that runs in my city (winnipeg) and has events in 3 other cities (including dallas) does not use the GW FAQ even though it uses the Errata.

http://www.astronomi-con.com/

edit: As it so happens I don't care one way or the other. For discussion's sake, I like to find out what the rules say and will argue a point that I think is correct. Practically, its far better to just come to an agreement and be consistent in the application of whatever set of rules you agree to play under.

Interesting, the new FAQ has certain vehicles destroyed when arriving from reserves by virtue of those vehicles simply being unable to fully enter the battlefield. That seals that debate.

That only really has an effect on Superheavies. It just makes it something you'll have to resolve in Apocalypse games if you're keeping superheavy tanks in Reserve.

Or if you immobilise yourself driving on.

Mahtamori wrote:Interesting, the new FAQ has certain vehicles destroyed when arriving from reserves by virtue of those vehicles simply being unable to fully enter the battlefield. That seals that debate.

Well I think we can ALL agree, even the diehard official rules followers (of which I am to a degree) that that is simply too slowed to follow...

Mahtamori wrote:Interesting, the new FAQ has certain vehicles destroyed when arriving from reserves by virtue of those vehicles simply being unable to fully enter the battlefield. That seals that debate.

Huh? What vehicles can't more more than 6", that couldn't fit on the table by pivoting?

Uhmm...I think the monolith (Unsure though) and some super heavy's.

Oscarius wrote:Uhmm...I think the monolith (Unsure though) and some super heavy's.

The Monolith is 6" square and can fit on the table by moving on. Just barely, but it can make it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Or if you immobilise yourself driving on.

I would say that constitutes a roll that would prevent you from moving on, so you wouldn't have to make it.

Incorrect. You can only disregard special rules *of the unit* when moving on - and vehicles taking a dangerous terrain test is NOT a special rule of the unit.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Or if you immobilise yourself driving on.

I would say that constitutes a roll that would prevent you from moving on, so you wouldn't have to make it.

The BRB says if a unit has a special rule that would prevent it moving on the rule is ingonred.
A vehicle failing a dangerous terrain test and becomming immobilized is not a special rule, it is a rule that covers all vehicles equally.

EDIT: Ninja'd by nosferatu!

A vehicle is a Unit- Check

A vehicle has a special rule about moving through terrain- Check

A vehicle is stopped if it rolls a 1- Check

A stopped vehicle is prevented from entering play- Check


what have I missed?