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.

Here's a question:

Does anybody expect to play in a competitive setting where the FAQs aren't considered "hard" rules, like errata?

sourclams wrote:Here's a question:

Does anybody expect to play in a competitive setting where the FAQs aren't considered "hard" rules, like errata?

I expect to play in a competitive setting where the TO clearly lines out what the rules are for his tournament. If that includes using FAQ's as Errata, that is his call, not mine.

sourclams wrote:Here's a question:

Does anybody expect to play in a competitive setting where the FAQs aren't considered "hard" rules, like errata?

No.

Likewise. Everywhere I've played they're taken as seriously as the errata.

This is quite true and, in practice, FAQs are generally adhered to.

However, that does not mean that there is not value to had in examining the original rules, especially in cases where the FAQ directly contradicts them (three examples in the IG codex FAQ which contradict the BRB).

The problem is that most FAQ rule changes are done for game balance or playability reasons (e.g. valk using it's base) and as such do not have any bearing in rule discussions.

For example, if we were talking about disembarking from a wave serpent, the fact that valks use the base (a special exemption given for the rather special circumstances presented by the model but diguised as a FAQ) has no bearing on the wave serpent discussion.

Hence certain peoples' dislike of FAQs in a discussion of a RAW point.

Gwar! wrote:I expect to play in a competitive setting where the TO clearly lines out what the rules are for his tournament. If that includes using FAQ's as Errata, that is his call, not mine.

Do you realistically expect the TO to exclude FAQs from his tournament rules?

sourclams wrote:

Gwar! wrote:I expect to play in a competitive setting where the TO clearly lines out what the rules are for his tournament. If that includes using FAQ's as Errata, that is his call, not mine.

Do you realistically expect the TO to exclude FAQs from his tournament rules?

No, but it is always a possibility. Stranger things have happened after all.

Gwar! wrote:

sourclams wrote:

Gwar! wrote:I expect to play in a competitive setting where the TO clearly lines out what the rules are for his tournament. If that includes using FAQ's as Errata, that is his call, not mine.

Do you realistically expect the TO to exclude FAQs from his tournament rules?

No, but it is always a possibility. Stranger things have happened after all.

You have a better chance of getting a pick up game with the Buddha himself than seeing GW FAQs ignored. The only time FAQs would be excluded from a tournament is if Gwar ran it. Of course, no body would show up.

If most of us agree that where it matters (tournaments) FAQs are going to be viewed in the same light as codices or the core rule book, then I'm curious as to what is gained by ignoring them in YMDC.

The stacking Astropaths, for example. Following grammar and simple mathematics, there's nothing that keeps Astropaths from stacking. It's written right there in the rules. This is what I still think, even following the FAQ that spells it out otherwise (and for no good reason, thematically or mechanically). But because of the FAQ, I'm no longer going to play the way that I think it should be for the simple reason that 99% of the time the FAQ is going to be the norm.

In short, I gain nothing from designing and practicing with lists that utilize a mechanic that won't work in competitive settings.

If the purpose of YMDC is to have serious and relevant rules discussions or to create useful insight into game mechanics, then I for one fail to see how ignoring what is going to be the rule in 99% of game environments is helpful to us.

olympia wrote:You have a better chance of getting a pick up game with the Buddha himself than seeing GW FAQs ignored. The only time FAQs would be excluded from a tournament is if Gwar ran it. Of course, no body would show up.

Personal Attacks notwithstanding, I think His Holiness Jetsun Jamphel Ngawang Lobsang Yeshe Tenzin Gyatso (ལྷ་མོ་དོན་འགྲུབ་ for any Tibetans out there ), also known as The 14th Dalai Lama, has better things to do than play Warhammer 40k.

Also, in the tournaments I run, I do use the GW FAQs along with the INAT FAQ, with a few alterations (i.e. Ones that totally contradict clear RaW)

Are you really comfortable calling that a personal attack?

Polonius wrote:Are you really comfortable calling that a personal attack?

1) False Accusation: "The only time FAQs would be excluded from a tournament is if Gwar ran it."
2) Personally named.
3) Further attack on my character: "Of course, no body would show up."

If it were not a personal attack, why did he mention me and only me?

For a guy that can pick apart a GW rule clean to the bone, I think you sometimes make the same mistakes reading people's posts as some of the posters here make in rules, namely adding meaning and words that simply aren't there.

While saying you wouldn't use FAQs is false, it's not really an accusation, more of an assertion.

When you post prolifically and, let's call it confidently, you have to expect people to refer to you by name.

It's not an attack on character to say that nobody would show up. It's at best an implication that your views are unpopular enough to dissuade people from attending, which isn't really a slur.

The larger point is that it's poor tactics to keep trying to paint yourself as a victim. You weren't here for the Stelek era, but one of the traits you share is fairly commonly expressed claim that you are being victimized. True or not, it only cements in people's perception that you are a similar persona, when in many ways your not.

That's leaving aside the difficulty in most people swallowing your brash posting style and arrogance coupled with a stream of cries about being attacked.

Right or wrong, good or bad, the best way for you to gain more respect and have more people listen to you is shed a few of the rough edges. The brash part is unlikely to go, so my recommendation is to lose the crybaby part.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:[If it were not a personal attack, why did he mention me and only me?

This was edited after I started my post, but I'll still reply:

Because you're the most prolific and vocal poster advocating literal RAW over all other considerations for play.

I would definitely play in a Gwar! run tournament. It would probably be the first tournament I've played in where the TO knows the rules worth a damn.

Polonius wrote:Because you're the most prolific and vocal poster advocating literal RAW over all other considerations for play.

Yet I have not once ever seriously claimed that tournament I run would not use the FAQs at all.

And it is not just me who thinks that way. Nor am I the only one who has noticed a huge increase in flamebaiting and personal attacks against me to try and rile me up.

Gwar! wrote:Yet I have not once ever seriously claimed that tournament I run would not use the FAQs at all.

And it is not just me who thinks that way. Nor am I the only one who has noticed a huge increase in flamebaiting and personal attacks against me to try and rile me up.

So somebody made a mistake, and said something about you that wasn't true. That doesn't make it a personal attack.

As for the actual flame baits, you gotta remember that your posts aren't exactly the most conciliatory things on the planet either.

If you want to post like a big dog, then you have to come to accept that people are going to treat you like a big dog, and that means a lot of punks coming out the woodwork. You can't post the way you post and not piss people off. And you know you post your share of needles and jabs and flames.

Gwar! wrote:

willydstyle wrote:If the INAT FAQ were based more on the rules and less on how someone thinks the rules *should* be, I would be more online with accepting it as a standard.

Same here. As much as I admit the INAT FAQ is a good piece of work, it does have far, FAR too many rules changed disguised as clarifications.

I'd like to see some examples of what you consider rules changes?

sourclams wrote:The stacking Astropaths, for example. Following grammar and simple mathematics, there's nothing that keeps Astropaths from stacking. It's written right there in the rules. This is what I still think, even following the FAQ that spells it out otherwise (and for no good reason, thematically or mechanically). But because of the FAQ, I'm no longer going to play the way that I think it should be for the simple reason that 99% of the time the FAQ is going to be the norm.

Actually, if you re-visit that thread me and Gwar! made a pretty good argument for why they shouldn't stack based entirely upon the rule as written.

That makes the FAQ ruling quite interesting.

NecronLord3 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

willydstyle wrote:If the INAT FAQ were based more on the rules and less on how someone thinks the rules *should* be, I would be more online with accepting it as a standard.

Same here. As much as I admit the INAT FAQ is a good piece of work, it does have far, FAR too many rules changed disguised as clarifications.

I'd like to see some examples of what you consider rules changes?

Shrike, Blood Angels Cyclones, Eversor Assassin’s ‘fast shot’, Mandrakes Shadow-skinned (hell this one even says "Replace x with y and is still labelled as a clarification), Slave Snares, Decapitator’s Shadow-skinned, Raider Reedemer’s Flamestorm Cannon vs Avatars, Ork Waaagh, Telion + Stealth, just off the top of my head.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Scott-S6 wrote:

sourclams wrote:The stacking Astropaths, for example. Following grammar and simple mathematics, there's nothing that keeps Astropaths from stacking. It's written right there in the rules. This is what I still think, even following the FAQ that spells it out otherwise (and for no good reason, thematically or mechanically). But because of the FAQ, I'm no longer going to play the way that I think it should be for the simple reason that 99% of the time the FAQ is going to be the norm.

ctually, if you re-visit that thread me and Gwar! made a pretty good argument for why they shouldn't stack based entirely upon the rule as written.

That makes the FAQ ruling quite interesting.

I know. An FAQ that follows the RaW, it made my mind assplode!

Modquisition on: get off the Gwar statements people. If this thread is about Gwar the poster it will be closed and errant posters, including Gwar if necessary, will be dealt with.

I think GW FAQ's, by being published by GW, are as good as Errata. Most people would play this way, and I would seriously question someone who came up to a rules issue, saw GW's intended solution, and decided not to play it.


I find it interesting that they answer some questions and not others. For example - the clarification to Veteran Squads. Are they REQUIRED to purchase a heavy weapons team? Its amazing that they can put the two unit entries directly above each other, edit PART of the rule, and not decide to edit another part that people find unclear?
And then a lot of the MORE unclear stuff on Valkyries... are wings hull? What happens if it gets immobilised with models underneath its wing? etc.

I know they say "these are not official" but it then goes on to say "use these for grey areas in the rules" - which indicates that they think this is a grey area - and then further indicate that the other solution to using their FAQ is a friendly dice roll. This shows to me that they really view their rules, by and large, as a 'friendly' rules set rather than 'competitive' and will probably continue to keep supporting it as such.



I still disagree with the argument over stacking astropaths (I feel that RAW they do stack), but, GW is GW and notorious for changing their rules in their FAQ . I believe they did this in the name of fairness - it sucks when all your reserves are a million turns late.


One last thing... I like the INAT FAQ. Maybe it could use the words (Rules Change) more often but I do believe it makes for a much smoother, more intuitive game.

Gwar! wrote:
Also, in the tournaments I run, I do use the GW FAQs along with the INAT FAQ, with a few alterations (i.e. Ones that totally contradict clear RaW)

i just pooped my pants a little when i read that. i guess the mayans were right; the world is ending in 2012 if gwar uses the faqs.

Trasvi wrote:I think GW FAQ's, by being published by GW, are as good as Errata. Most people would play this way, and I would seriously question someone who came up to a rules issue, saw GW's intended solution, and decided not to play it.

Well GW themselves say they are not as good as errata.

I find it interesting that they answer some questions and not others. For example - the clarification to Veteran Squads. Are they REQUIRED to purchase a heavy weapons team?

No, and they never have. It is under "Options". The very fact it is an "Option" means it is Optional.

willydstyle wrote:So what do you guys think? Given that we have documents to prove RAI, how admissible are these rules to RAW debates?

Sorry for getting to the party late. Had a 40K game to play so I was indisposed.

To answer willydstyle's question, I'm not sure anyone *wants* an injection of provable RAI in rules debates. They seem much happier slugging it out without them. I guess for those willing to expend the synapse firings to divine the meaning of the Holy Writ™ the FAQs are a sideline.

For the "How Would You Play It" types (like me) they are indispensable. Personally I'd like to play it like the guys that wrote the Codex or Rule Book play it. They seem to have a pretty good handle on intent... y'know having written the books and all. So while it's not in the body of your question, willydstyle, the title I believe hits the nail right on the head. FAQ does indeed equal intent.