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.

So using Google translate and the German version of the 6th edition FAQs, I've found different rules for a few hotly debated topics and unpopular rulings. My question to Dakka is what to use when FAQs disagree?

The examples

1) Are CSM Daemon Princes with wings FMC? According to the German FAQ the answer is yes, the english version says no. Sources:

German FAQ
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2420328a_Chaos_Space_Marines_FAQ_6Ed_v1.pdf

Google Translate of the appropiate rule:

Page 85 - Special equipment, wings
Replace the entry with the following text:
"Infantry models with wings change their type of unit
to infantry with jump pack, monstrous creatures
Wings change their unit type to monstrous flying
Creature. "

http://translate.google.com/#auto|en|Seite%2085%20%E2%80%93%20Spezialausr%C3%BCstung%2C%20Fl%C3%BCgel%0AErsetze%20den%20Eintrag%20durch%20folgenden%20Text%3A%0A%E2%80%9EInfanteriemodelle%20mit%20Fl%C3%BCgeln%20%C3%A4ndern%20ihren%20Einheitentyp%0Azu%20Infanterie%20mit%20Sprungmodul%2C%20Monstr%C3%B6se%20Kreaturen%20mit%0AFl%C3%BCgeln%20%C3%A4ndern%20ihren%20Einheitentyp%20zu%20Fliegende%20monstr%C3%B6se%0AKreatur.%E2%80%9C%0A

2) Do Eldar Harlequins get both Shrouding and Sighting distance? According to the German version the answer is no, the English says yes. (albeit indirectly)

German FAQ
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2420331a_Eldar_FAQ_6Ed_v1.pdf

Google Translate:

Page 49 - The fate of readers, Veil of Tears
Replace the fourth and the following sentences with the following
text:
"The fate of readers and have all the models in his unit
the special rules and camouflage veil. "

http://translate.google.com/#auto|en|Seite%2049%20%E2%80%93%20Schicksalsleser%2C%20Schleier%20der%20Tr%C3%A4nen%0AErsetze%20den%20vierten%20und%20die%20folgenden%20S%C3%A4tze%20durch%20folgenden%0AText%3A%0A%E2%80%9EDer%20Schicksalsleser%20und%20alle%20Modelle%20in%20seiner%20Einheit%20haben%0Adie%20Sonderregeln%20Schleier%20und%20Tarnung.%E2%80%9C

This one is a pretty rough translation but the key part about which sentences to replace is clear.

Caveat
I found the German translator doesn't correct every injustice. For example, there is no update for Dark Eldar Harlequins or Grey Knight Stormraven's. Perhaps we could explore every single version of all the FAQs exhaustively, but I think we'd just discover that some mistakes are made by the teams that write the FAQs and some mistakes are made by the teams that determine the FAQ content. Likely two different groups and pay grades.

I'd stick with the English version, rather than relying on Googles somewhat spotty translator. The original rules are written in english, then translated.

Especially since your country flag puts you in the US

If you and your group are all using german language codexes and rulebooks, they would take precedence, as long as you were consistently using all of your books as the german language ones, but trying to use variants of the rules by looking for translation errors would be a bit dubious, IMO.

So Ascalam what I think your argument is: Whatever your group agrees to as a convention . (or your opponent)

However, how do you decide that convention? This answer is a bit circular: "Whatever your group has done before." But that's not helpful if there is no custom about it yet. Also can customs never change?

Casting doubt on Google translate's quality won't resolve the issue, someone inevitably will appear who speaks one of the various languages, do a manual translation, or just use multiple online translators.

Btw if I found only the US version was different and all the other translated copies were in agreement, would this change your opinion?

Just to put my bias out front, I don't play either of these codices myself. So either way one benefits me and the other doesn't.

Not exactly.

My argument (possibly badly expressed) is that if you are going to play by German FAQ's, you'd better be using the German language versions of the rulebook and codecii, for consistency.

If you are going to play by the English language rulebook and codecii (the language the designers wrote the book and codecii in, and therefore most likely the ones most accurately portraying their intent and the correct version of the rules) then play by the english language FAQ's, rather than trying to argue that the translated ones can be used intead.

Even if all the other language versions were in agreement (they aren't btw) the rules as intended to be played are written in English (GW is an English company, and their rules are written in English, the US version and the UK version of the rulebooks and codecii being the same.). Errors and mistranslations occur (60+ differences in the German version of the game so far, according to some of the German folk on here), but i doubt very much they were deliberately out to create different rules for the same game in every non English-speaking country.

Therefore, if you are playing by the English-language rules, those are the FAQ's you are supposed to be using.

If you don't like this, by all means houserule it with your own group if you find a ruling you all like better. The official stance is that the FAQ's for each language are the official ones for the rulebooks and codecii in that language.

For fun, why don't you try going to a tournament and asking if you can use the German FAQ (with it's different wording) when everyone else is using the English FAQ. Let me know how that turns out

If i was playing in France (for random example) and there were discrepancies in the rules and faq's in France's version of the books i would expect to play by the French version of the rules.

I would not then expect to be able to scoop any beneficial rules variants/wordings from the French version of the rules, translate them and take them home to the USA, and then expect everyone else to be cool with playing the game 'French style' because i say so. We could houserule it, but the convention of playing by the FAQ's written for the same language as the rules is so mind-meltingly obvious that most people wouldn't even question it, or attempt to seque in translated rules from another language.

Ok that's clearer, for consistency sake you are saying like and like should be used. I suppose in an ideal world there is one cannon and all languages should match, not a world we live in.

Per your suggestion, I did check the Eldar rule in some other languages.

The french version says something different, replace the 2 paragraph, but this has the same game effect as the Germans

Japan agrees exactly with the Geran's

Most countries don't get their own language, just English

The Italians and Spanish get rules equivalent to the English

However, the worse off are clearly the Belgians. They have BOTH English and French which don't agree on these rules.

So I guess since they can't settle on their rules with some arbitrary method, like what their countries' supported language is, then they'll just have to settle it by Ro Sham Bo at the start of each game.

For the record I don't think that the English edition of the FAQ has any special primacy for being 'right' just because GW is in the UK. This assumes GW acts as one entity, however the writer for the english FAQ could be the incompetent son of a board member and the German translator drinking budies with Matt Ward or whomever is the rule maker.

Ruleswise it sucks to be Belgian, but they get the best beer to drink while discussing the finer points of rules differences

YMMV of course.. lets not start a beer war

Didn't GW have a policy of "where other languages and the English version conflict, use the English version" in previous editions?

Whose rules do they use for ETC? English or whatever language the players normally use? I'm betting English.

chromedog wrote:Didn't GW have a policy of "where other languages and the English version conflict, use the English version" in previous editions?

Whose rules do they use for ETC? English or whatever language the players normally use? I'm betting English.

Well, the rules are written in English and then given to translators to translate into other languages, so yes, the 'true' language of these rules is always going to be English as it is an English language game translated into other languages.

Jaded, the English version is the one most likely to be correct. So I would advise using that one. But if everyone else around you is using the German one.... not much you can do.

Having had some experience with localization, a high quality localizer will often find, catch, and resolve problems in the original by going back to the source.

It doesn't require too much organizational sloth to fail to go back and correct other translations late in the release cycle.

Also the person who writes the English faqs is not guaranteed to be the person writing the rulebook.

Typically a sign of this kind of problem is when the different versions don't agree.

To use a programming analogy, there is a requirements document and then there is code. Whether that code was written in Java or C++ is really irrelevant. It's how well the program fits the spec. In this way 'true' language is an irrelevant concept here. The canon resides in some designer's head somewhere and different individuals at a company will have different success rates at drawing it out.

Of course far be it from me to say what that design document intended, we can only see the code. Personally I just find these discrepancies very interesting. GW should consider treating it's rulebooks more like 'code' that will have bugs and need frequent patching and less like, well, a book.

As someone owning copies of both languages for all relevant GW books, let me tell you that the person/people in charge of the German translation should be taken outside and shot. Anything in a German FAQ that doesn't match up is just another error in a long line of bad translations.

The ork codex itself contains 17 game-changing translation errors, and three times more which have no impact on the game.
- German trukks always explode 6" (original: D6)
- German nobz may not take big shootaz (It says "ork boy" rather than "one ork")
- German grabbin klaws measure from the hull of the vehicle (original - from the klaw)
- German deff rollas can not be dodged
Just to name a few...

chromedog wrote:Didn't GW have a policy of "where other languages and the English version conflict, use the English version" in previous editions?

Whose rules do they use for ETC? English or whatever language the players normally use? I'm betting English.

Sadly they didn't. Most people here argue "We're not in England!"(for us Germans England and the UK is the same ) and dismiss the original rules.

Hi Jidmah

I'm curious, can you think of an example where the German version added a full sentence. Like the bit about MC counting as Flying, unlike regular infantry?

...or got a basic number right/wrong.

I.e. said three instead of two? Numbers tend to be easy to translate.

That would seal the deal for me personally.

In the first printing of the ork codex Warbikers have 2 Wounds. So they even "mistranslated" plain numbers.

They were probably lazy and copy+pasted the translation from the Chaos Daemons.

Either way, WH40k is made in the UK, to assume any language is more correct than the original (especial if you're from an English-speaking country) is not going to make you a lot of friends.

Unfortunately, as a relatively newer player, it's been my experience that a rigid adherence to RAW, outside of Tournaments, loses me playing friends much faster than trying to come to a reasonable agreement on intended rules that everyone can accept.

Here in germany all RAW-arguments use only the English rules as reference. If the German version is a different one, then it will be ignored. There are some hardliners ("We are in Germany, we play by German rules..."), who can't understand that this is a game made in the UK and that a bad translation doesn't "germanise" the game at all, but the vast majority plays strictly by English rules.

I wonder why this comes up in an English-speaking board?

German infiltrators.

Oh, something awesome we realized during a game on saturday.

There are no more units with "Relentless" in German 40k

It used to translate to "Waffenexperte" (=weapon expert), and now translates to "Unnachgiebig" (=relentless).

As all codices use the weapon expert translation, terminators and the like now have a rule which does nothing. Way to go GW!

I was going to post something relating to this discussion, but I read Jidmahs signature and now I can't stop laughing...ok...I have german language rules (as well as english), but I have always used english FAQ, using non-english FAQs for an english game just seem odd.

As a side note GW didn't try to hide their dislike of my Dark Angels in the German translation. Die Dark Angels die! Terrible German joke I know, es tut mir lied!