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.

I want to make a list of FAQ rulings that people believe are rules changes not clarifications. I have run into the argument that you never know which is which and would like to make a list so that discussions can be started on why people feel some are changes and not clarifications.

Off the top of my head we have:
1: FNP vs Force
2: Wound allocation

What else is there?

* Look Out Sir!
* Battlements

your #1 was not a change, it was clarification of existing rules.

I'm not sure what the point of this thread actually is or what you're hoping to accomplish. To people that disagreed with the FAQ interpretation, of course they will call them rule changes. To people that agreed with the FAQ interpretation, they'll say it was a simple clarification.

So.... now what?

according to GW,

not a single FAQ changed any rules (despite what dakka thinks)

so by RAW, none of the FAQ's changed any rules,

only the errata does that.

and, none of the FAQ's DO strictly change any rules, although many do clarify things that likely are not intuitive to lots of people, so they cry out "the rules were changed" when what they really mean, is "what my interpretation of what the rule should be" has changed.

 easysauce wrote:
and, none of the FAQ's DO strictly change any rules, although many do clarify things that likely are not intuitive to lots of people, so they cry out "the rules were changed" when what they really mean, is "what my interpretation of what the rule should be" has changed.

Tyranids not being allowed to use gun emplacements. Absolutely no support in the rules, and changed by "FAQ" because it's how GW imagines the fluff working.

 easysauce wrote:
according to GW, not a single FAQ changed any rules (despite what dakka thinks)

For anyone who has actually read the FAQ's, it is completely clear that FAQ's often change RAW. This has been shown many times and anyone arguing otherwise has kept himself ignorant of the changes. should read the examples below and rethink his/her position.

 easysauce wrote:
and, none of the FAQ's DO strictly change any rules,

You're 100% wrong on this one.
It is trivial to show that FAQ entries change rules. For example, lets see Codex Necrons FAQ from January:

Codex Necrons V1.2 page 6 wrote:Q: Is there any way to embark back onto a Night Scythe?
A: Yes – follow the rules for Embarking on page 78, treating the Night Scythe’s base as its Access Point. Note that this is possible despite the Night Scythe being a Zooming Flyer.

Now tell me, how can you argue that "FAQ doesn't change rules" with straight face, when FAQ entry states that something is possible even though rules explicitly says it is not. This entry was later reworded and moved to "Amendment". It is not nearly the only one: Battlements not being buildings is one, Tyranids not able to man gun emplacements other like Peregrine pointed out. FMC's being able to Skyfire is yet another.

 easysauce wrote:
although many do clarify things that likely are not intuitive to lots of people, so they cry out "the rules were changed" when what they really mean, is "what my interpretation of what the rule should be" has changed.

Yes and no. Many FAQs are like this. In quite many other cases FAQ writers have found out that the RAW they wrote didn't match RAI and 'fix' the issue with FAQ entry, instead of Errata.

But FAQ entries can change rules, have done so even in 5e and anyone arguing otherwise has not done their homework on the subject. and for some reason, all of them are unable to counter the examples given and are always unwilling to discuss them, instead preferring to ignore all evidence that disagrees with their position.

Luide wrote:

A: Yes – follow the rules for Embarking on page 78, treating the Night Scythe’s base as its Access Point. Note that this is possible despite the Night Scythe being a Zooming Flyer.

Now tell me, how can you argue that "FAQ doesn't change rules" with straight face, when FAQ entry states that something is possible even though rules explicitly says it is not. This entry was later reworded and moved to "Amendment".

Tyranid Shadow in the Warp vs vehicles ruling flopping from No to Yes.

One of those (at least) was a rules change.

If a flyer that can hover decides to do so it cannot use skyfire - the FAQ references the rulebook page on flyers but I couldn't find anything that would suggest that from the core rules on flyers.

 kronk wrote:

Luide wrote:

A: Yes – follow the rules for Embarking on page 78, treating the Night Scythe’s base as its Access Point. Note that this is possible despite the Night Scythe being a Zooming Flyer.

Now tell me, how can you argue that "FAQ doesn't change rules" with straight face, when FAQ entry states that something is possible even though rules explicitly says it is not. This entry was later reworded and moved to "Amendment".

Could one not argue that the Night Scythe is an exception to the rule and the FAQ clarified it?

The point of the thread is just what the title says. I am trying to collect the apparent rules changes to see if we can find and clarify the ones that are not changes but merely clarifications. I'm not looking to change minds here simply collect the apparent changes. Once I have a decent list I plan on making other threads to discuss them.

Battlements not counting as a building despite the multi-part building rules quite clearly saying that they do is a change.

 easysauce wrote:
according to GW,

not a single FAQ changed any rules (despite what dakka thinks)

so by RAW, none of the FAQ's changed any rules,

only the errata does that.

and, none of the FAQ's DO strictly change any rules, although many do clarify things that likely are not intuitive to lots of people, so they cry out "the rules were changed" when what they really mean, is "what my interpretation of what the rule should be" has changed.

Um....how about the FAQ about wounds and "out of range" when it comes to say, 16wounds caused but only 4 in range? BRB specifically says it kills until out of sight or out of wounds, FAQ (not eratta) straight up counters this idea and added that confusing "multi-gun" part that makes you think RAW "Big gun, i ignore this FAQ" or RAI "Every gun has its own kill range, despite the long range random one"

Others have also been stated. They do it all the time.

EDIT: Oh and im surprised noone mentioned this one:

Q: How do I determine the Arc of Sight for a Heldrake’s ranged
weapon? (p52)
A: Treat the Heldrake’sranged weapon as a Turret
Mounted Weapon, measuring allranges from the edge of
the Heldrake’s base nearest to the target unit.

Thats DEFINITELY a FAQ change not an eratta. Nothing says its a turret, nothing says its aimed from the base despite it being a VEHICLE which goes from the gun (his head) normally.

Gravmyr wrote:
The point of the thread is just what the title says. I am trying to collect the apparent rules changes to see if we can find and clarify the ones that are not changes but merely clarifications. I'm not looking to change minds here simply collect the apparent changes. Once I have a decent list I plan on making other threads to discuss them.

Many of these have been said before, but from BRB FAQ one can find at least following:
* Wounds cannot be allocated to models out of range (page 4)
* Swooping FMC's allowed to use Skyfire (page 6)
* Use own toughness instead of majority toughness in a challenge (page 6). Note that they still haven't fixed majority WS....
* Battlements not being buildings anymore (page 8)

Force vs FNP is much harder case and I'm not personally 100% certain is it a rules change or just a clarification.
Aegis Defence line deployment (on page 9) could also go both ways.