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.

Gwar! wrote:Oh, I am sorry, I thought this was Rules as Written Forum. Please accept a thousand apologies.

its not, these are the tenants of YMDC

2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Askyourquestion@games-workshop.com are technically official, but they are easily spoofed and should not be relied on.

and

4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.

clearly YMDC is about literally you making the call and not "all raw", so FAQs are relative to every discussion here.

kirsanth wrote:And now you get to be harangued like Gwar!, lol.

For the record I feel I am a much more handsome man then Gwar!, so he should probably still be the more hated upon.

To be fair, according to GW, if you play in a tournament or against a stranger, you -should- use the FAQs. If you play with your buddies, well, you might come up with rules that better suit you.

So.. Gwar's assessment that the FAQs mean nothing is a bit strong. Sure, The GW police won't show up to stop you if you don't use it, but they suggest you do. If I remember right, the BRB itself makes a similar claim regarding all the rules anyway, So by RAW, strict RAW, anything is possible. Reasonable people differ.

Barakia wrote:To be fair, according to GW, if you play in a tournament or against a stranger, you -should- use the FAQs. If you play with your buddies, well, you might come up with rules that better suit you.

So.. Gwar's assessment that the FAQs mean nothing is a bit strong. Sure, The GW police won't show up to stop you if you don't use it, but they suggest you do. If I remember right, the BRB itself makes a similar claim regarding all the rules anyway, So by RAW, strict RAW, anything is possible. Reasonable people differ.

I don't think Gwar! is saying this... page one he even says

"if you agree ahead of time to use the FAQs...." then its ok

But what I read him typing is that the RAW fact of the matter is that yes they can take it until the errata is made

This does not mean you're "breaking rules" (has a negative connotation) for following the FAQ per say, but rather simply that you are playing with agreed upon house rules for difficult situations when you are following FAQs.

At least that is what I am reading.... am I right in this?

well for snikrot is this even an issue? Hes not an IC, hes an upgrade char without IC listed in his special rules so .... he gets cybork as normal doesnt he? even by the faq, for what that rag matters.

olympia wrote:All major tournaments accept the GW FAQs as writ; likewise with the INAT authors. There are a few very prolific posters who pollute this forum with RAW fundamentalism: to wit that they would refuse to play someone who brought a GW FAQ to settle a rules dispute. Simply put thor, rejecting the GW FAQs is not only unreasonable it's absurd, a totally untenable position as was outlined by many people in this thread, notable D'Ork.

QFT !!!

Nowhere in the errata does it say the FAQs are not official. Those who say they are not simply hope others will not check what exactly the errata has to say themselves. Deception is a very bad thing in my book and should not be tolerated. I think many of us have to come realize one source where this comes from on a daily basis.

G

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Source please

Green Blow Fly wrote:QFT !!!

Nowhere in the errata does it say the FAQs are not official. Those who say they are not simply hope others will not check what exactly the errata has to say themselves. Deception is a very bad thing in my book and should not be tolerated. I think many of us have to come realize one source where this comes from on a daily basis.

G

If it was in the Errata, I do not think one source () would have the issue that irks you so.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
"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'.

Why make a FAQ for things that DO have right and wrong answers, especially when you qualify them with statements like the end of this one? Remember, they also print Errata.
It seems asinine, generally, makes questioning the changes valid. Regardless of who is questioning it - even knowing that many (most?) people will use them anyway.

Green Blow Fly wrote: Nowhere in the errata does it say the FAQs are not official. Those who say they are not simply hope others will not check what exactly the errata has to say themselves. Deception is a very bad thing in my book and should not be tolerated. I think many of us have to come realize one source where this comes from on a daily basis.

G

You're right, they dont list it in the errata, it's located right above the faqs youre clicking to view, as a heading to the entire faq section, which states exactly that.

Gwar! wrote:

PanamaG wrote:Have fun using your artificial worldview at a tournament.

Like the ones I run?

Where? Pics please or I'm calling BS.

Oh and STOP USING OVERSIZED LETTERING TO EMPHASISE WHEN YOUR BEING PATRONISING, WE ALREADY GET THE POINT

Hollismason wrote:Source please

It's from some White Dwarf I think, I just found it lying around on the internet somewhere.

kirsanth wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
"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'.

Why make a FAQ for things that DO have right and wrong answers, especially when you qualify them with statements like the end of this one? Remember, they also print Errata.
It seems asinine, generally, makes questioning the changes valid. Regardless of who is questioning it - even knowing that many (most?) people will use them anyway.

Most will use them anyway, what is perhaps annoying for me is the attitude of some here that to do so is in some way 'wrong' or not l33t enough.
The idea that things that are FAQ'd already have a 'right' answer that GW isn't using? Again you are pertaining to something that just doesn't wash, the RAW ideal that is being held aloft here that is not RAW, rules are one thing, citation of extracts from the rulebook, often from distinct areas of the book with slanted emphasis on certain wording from that paragraph or sentence (see all of the weapons etc) is not a ruling from the book, it is conjecture. It is supposition not an explained rule. So when there exists a grey area, one that many people ask about, like the strange notion that WH/DHs could suddenly not take the tank their codex said they could due to the inclusion of the word 'squadron' in the new ImpG book, GW notes this and says yes it's business as usual you can still take the damned tank.

The disclaimers in the front of the book and at the beginning of the FAQs are actually there to alleviate rules as written constriction, so if you want to maintain that FAQs aren't worth gak, carry on, you are in a minority both in casual and tourney play since worldwide the vast majority will continue to use the FAQs as the rulings of the design team for the game system, or as in the case of the Ork FAQ, rulings from Tourney FAQs that GW endorsed and gave the official stamp of approval to.

Wow, clearly I have been caught in an argument that started long before this thread and, I suspect, really has very little to do with what I have said, or have had said, to me in this thread.

And exit, stage right.

MeanGreenStompa has hit the nail on the head very precisely.

Mauleed I think invited the intrepretation by RAW. He was a pioneer. Unfortunately he was also extremely competitive. You can be so competitive that you remove yourself from the playing field. The hobby is not Man United versus Bayern Munich, it's still very much a hobby and anybody that can't figure that out eventually becomes a collector of models.

G

nosferatu1001 wrote:Rejecting the FAQs is not untenable as a position when they tell you you may do so in the preface to all FAQs.

Not sure I have gone so far as to buy in on that yet. Although, I am afraid to say, it appears that it is coming down to be opinion based so I am not going to be pointing fingers and being a gak wit toward people about it without provocation. Bear with me.

gwar wrote:No, they didn't. I highly doubt anyone related to the creation of Warhammer 40k still works at Games Workshop, let alone has any sort of influence as to what goes on. Of course, I do not know for sure, so feel free to enlighten me if this is the case.

Rick Priestley still works there, I believe. He wrote 40k originally (as part of a team with him as principal writer and designer), as he was directed to, to boost model sales. Seeing as how he is the Creative Director at GW, it would appear that he is still very involved in the system. You are now enlightened. Somewhat, it's a very narrow blip in a very narrow field.

Thor665 wrote:...
GW, the makers of said FAQs, openly claim that they are not rules....

I think now we have come to the crux of the matter. The issue is that GW has said one thing (Faq's=/=rules), but they are doing another (using the FAQ's as rules, and not allowing official tourneys the option of dispensing with them). So, we have a choice. Do what they say, or do what they do. Opinions on that?

Deleted by the modquisition warning to follow.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:The idea that things that are FAQ'd already have a 'right' answer that GW isn't using? Again you are pertaining to something that just doesn't wash, the RAW ideal that is being held aloft here that is not RAW, rules are one thing, citation of extracts from the rulebook, often from distinct areas of the book with slanted emphasis on certain wording from that paragraph or sentence (see all of the weapons etc) is not a ruling from the book, it is conjecture. It is supposition not an explained rule. So when there exists a grey area, one that many people ask about, like the strange notion that WH/DHs could suddenly not take the tank their codex said they could due to the inclusion of the word 'squadron' in the new ImpG book, GW notes this and says yes it's business as usual you can still take the damned tank.

So you think none of the FAQs contradict the rules previously written?
Or is this about the pet tanks only?
---
Also, I think "pertaining" is misused - or just trying to confuse things. I am not related to, connected to, belonging to something that just does not wash.

kirsanth wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:The idea that things that are FAQ'd already have a 'right' answer that GW isn't using? Again you are pertaining to something that just doesn't wash, the RAW ideal that is being held aloft here that is not RAW, rules are one thing, citation of extracts from the rulebook, often from distinct areas of the book with slanted emphasis on certain wording from that paragraph or sentence (see all of the weapons etc) is not a ruling from the book, it is conjecture. It is supposition not an explained rule. So when there exists a grey area, one that many people ask about, like the strange notion that WH/DHs could suddenly not take the tank their codex said they could due to the inclusion of the word 'squadron' in the new ImpG book, GW notes this and says yes it's business as usual you can still take the damned tank.

So you think none of the FAQs contradict the rules previously written?
Or is this about the pet tanks only?

Define 'contradicts' and define 'rules', do you mean directly goes against a written rule or doesn't mesh with various things written in the book? I don't doubt there may be some contradictions in the books, that's GW for you, that's why people's insistence on RAW for a game not written to the level of legislative text continually amuses me, hmm, let me correct that, the people who construe supposed RAW from various areas of the book and cry out that it's law, that the amusing thing, these books were not written by the finest minds known to man, just some hobby geeks made good.

As to why the tanks?
Gwar posted that he had been vindicated with the release of the FAQs, that they agreed with him and were therefore right-on, it was then pointed out to him by several of us that he was quite wrong on the WH/DH tanks, we then saw him shift tack and start muttering that the FAQs weren't the real thing anyways, I could actually picture him kicking the dirt and huffing as he wrote it.
This 'trend' in FAQ bashing has only really taken off in this area of the boards since that incident and is now driven home in virtually any of the fairly numerous posts from our mutual friend.
The FAQs are still an adjudication from GW or the careful compilation of problem solving discussion taken place by the owner of this site and those who helped him.

You and I both know this, the caveat at the front of the FAQs and the 'Most important rule' in the rulebook are both Jevisisms. They are GWs way of being elusive and shrugging off the 'absolute' that so many game players would like to see. They free GW from 'being caught out' or looking like they owe us a solid answer or a well written book.

The FAQs are very useful (for the most part, the space marine one did indeed have some very poor aspects), I will continue to use them as rulings on issues I and my group of friends find, in fact all fourteen people in my gaming group would never once take issue with a FAQ and abide by them and I don't think I've ever met, other than in this forum, anyone who'd argue against using them.

kirsanth wrote: Also, I think "pertaining" is misused - or just trying to confuse things. I am not related to, connected to, belonging to something that just does not wash.

Pertaining, alluding to, relating with, hinting at. Christ man, you don't get to quibble with my text, you're a bloody colonial...


(and we all know the colonists don't wash...)

Maybe when discussing we should say..... When Playing using FAQ's , this happens or this is how I understand it.

And... When playing with out using FAQ's..... THIS is how I understand it to be played.

When playing RAW ..... etc

ETC.......

May save some time......? just a thought?

(waiting to get flamed/shot down).....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
My 2cents worth, which in my country doesn't exist in coin value but only electrionicly..

Man I really need a picture of a train derailed to post here.

Ironklawmadgutsmek wrote:Maybe when discussing we should say..... When Playing using FAQ's , this happens or this is how I understand it.

And... When playing with out using FAQ's..... THIS is how I understand it to be played.

When playing RAW ..... etc

May save some time......? just a thought?

It's a good idea, but we do then face a situation wherein:
Some like myself feel FAQs resolve and should be given due attention and that the caveat about how you use them is just the fashion at GW HQ of Jervis promoting you play it as you like it.
Some feel they aren't RAW due to the caveat and that therefore they can include anything in them but remain impotent as a rule and people are free to ignore them.

So I, for example, feel that FAQs are rules to be taken seriously, I believe the 'do what you want' bit in FAQs is precisely the same as the 'do what you want' bit in the rulebook.
So the FAQs provides the guidance if the situation should arise. I have stopped using deffrollers to attack other tanks, I don't want that and would far rather attack tanks with it since the Ork army does lack a healthy level of tank killage imo, but it's the conclusion drawn from a well constructed document drawn from many hours play-testing and debating by Yakface and co, plus it makes my regular opponents happier.

Hollismason wrote:Man I really need a picture of a train derailed to post here.

The thread hasn't derailed, it's digressed into a wider discussion of the original questions point raised, if it had been derailed we'd be arguing about the merits of J-Lo's musical contribution over the last 4 years or the concept of evolution vs divine creation.

The OP has bowed out, his question has been provided with several answers and he'll take the one he reasons is the best for him onboard and run with it. But the thread had gone on to talk about the wider implications of how 'valid' FAQs are, since a FAQ gave an answer to the original question.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:The thread hasn't derailed, it's digressed into a wider discussion of the original questions point raised, if it had been derailed we'd be arguing about the merits of J-Lo's musical contribution over the last 4 years or the concept of evolution vs divine creation.

Personally I feel that Rebirth was one of her better albums but recently she has been producing lacklustre material.

Ha ha, please stick to the topic.

I didn't find it funny. This to me is a serious conversation.

Carry on.

G

Pertaining, alluding to, relating with, hinting at. Christ man, you don't get to quibble with my text, you're a bloody colonial...


(and we all know the colonists don't wash...)

We colonists took by force what we wanted from you. We then went on to save your well-cleaned arses from the germans on a couple occasions. So please don't think poorly on us for our lack of washing.

Back on topic: I honestly don't see what the arguements are about here. GW officially says the FAQs are not official. 99% of gamers and tournament directors do use them as "official."

So we all win I think. All of us FAQ supporters can move ahead planning armies with the FAQs in mind. Those that don't like them can play with others that feel the same way. Or they can talk about how they want to play things before a game.

I think that, for the purposes of answering questions here, both parties are entitled to there opinions on the FAQs. So while Gwar or other non-FAQ people might answer a question one way and I might answer it a different way (using FAQs to direct my answer) both answers can be correct.

augustus5 wrote: We then went on to save your well-cleaned arses from the germans on a couple occasions.

Your Russian?

And if you claim the 1st one as well as the second, then you're just tripping.

Back to topic-ish...
The problem is that Gwar, prodigious poster that he is, is tubthumping 'FAQs aren't propa and if you use them you're wrong' across the YMDC sandpit.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Back to topic-ish...
The problem is that Gwar, prodigious poster that he is, is tubthumping 'FAQs aren't propa and if you use them you're wrong' across the YMDC sandpit.

Actually, it's more like:
'FAQs aren't propa and if you use them you're wrong but you are free to be as wrong as you like, I do not care either way' (That was a joke btw)

You only took by force thanks to the French, a fact you seem to have ignored ever since

FAQs are not rules, they are houserules. AS it says in the document.

Gwar! wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Back to topic-ish...
The problem is that Gwar, prodigious poster that he is, is tubthumping 'FAQs aren't propa and if you use them you're wrong' across the YMDC sandpit.

Actually, it's more like:
'FAQs aren't propa and if you use them you're wrong but you are free to be as wrong as you like, I do not care either way' (That was a joke btw)

The part about you caring was the joke? Because you've stated the rest of that in more than one post I've read, in fact it's become something of a catch all for you, the 'well of course if you want to ignore the rules and be wrong you can use them'.

Now, about those tournaments you mentioned, I'm interested to know more about those, can you provide me with some details, I'm very keen to know how such a rigid adherence to the written word went down at them and perhaps visit the website or read up on them on someone's blog? See some of the armies that took part?