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.

What I am Talking about is, for example, Deff Dread Attacks. Using the Rules as they are Written, they get X attacks. The FAQ says they get Y attacks. No Explanation or rules change, they just ignore the RaW.

Frazzled wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Agreed. Frankly one can argue a default that that screams RAI from GW, and hence would be binding as well. However, I've not had anyone in the Real World (TM) make the claim to not use the GW FAQ, or even worse only a part of them. The latter positions you as potentially TFG as you're cherry picking.

I only use part, and I am not cherry picking. I use the bits that actually clarify unclear rules. The parts the directly contradict clear RaW are the bits I ignore.

Incorrect. You are using the parts that you believe 'actually clarify unclear rules." You are indeed cherry picking against your self defined analysis of what is RAW or not and using them only in support of that.

Thats cherry picking. Either / or is not. Anything deviating from that is, by its very nature, perceptual cherry picking.

The entire legal industry makes its bones on particular viewings of RAI/RAW. What is RAW is always in the eye of the beerholder.


"The Vorlons have a saying, 'the truth is a three edged sword. Your truth, my truth, and what lies in between.' "

QFT

At least with the GW FAQs you have an unbiased third party answering questions. If nothing else they hold value in that players of the game can read them beforehand and both know what to expect if the situation arises. That reason alone is enough to use them for tournaments.

FLGS game night, well you are free to play situations however you and your opponents choose to play them.

Gwar! wrote:What I am Talking about is, for example, Deff Dread Attacks. Using the Rules as they are Written, they get X attacks. The FAQ says they get Y attacks. No Explanation or rules change, they just ignore the RaW.

Are you saying they say something different to the RAW, or just that they're basically RAW without saying why?

Spirit of the law vs letter of the law. again...

The FAQs represent the resolution of issues that the creators of the game have decided best reflects their intention.

The FAQs are used the world over to resolve these same issues both in competitive and casual play.

The majority of the players of the world will continue to use them, irregardless of any notion that they contain a caveat dedicated to the mantra of personal choice.

I'd be more in agreement to the nonFAQ players if those not utilizing the FAQ didn't utilize any of it.

The Green Git wrote:At least with the GW FAQs you have an unbiased third party answering questions.

I am afraid that is not true. If they have to pick between:
Following the Rules as best as possible

or

Ignoring them so people buy more models


They pick the 2nd option. See the IG FAQ where they made Valks unreal and let DH/WH Armies take options they shouldn't be able to have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:I'd be more in agreement to the nonFAQ players if those not utilizing the FAQ didn't utilize any of it.

But there are issues that need clarifying, however, GW half the time don't address them, the other half address rules that are clear and the other half just outright ignore the rules.

Your defense is not supportable. If you use any of the FAQ than you are cherry picking to what supports your interpretation of RAW. Further, you're assuming RAW is the way to play.

Gwar! wrote: and let DH/WH Armies take options they shouldn't be able to have.

Letting DH/WH Armies continue to take options they already had the choice to take, despite bizarre interpretation of the written word by you.

Really mate, stop it already, I know it itches but picking at it just makes it worse. I'm sorry you were so blindly insistant but GW said otherwise in the FAQ and you've really gone into overdrive to get the FAQs ruled out ever since. The oversight on the description in the Imp G codex to squadron really was just that, an oversight and they have said it's fine to take.

0-1 Leman Russ is perfectly fine in a DH or WH army.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:0-1 Leman Russ is perfectly fine in a DH or WH army.

Only because the FAQ says so. RaW it is not.

PER YOUR INTERPRETATION.

And that, son, is cherry picking.

Frazzled wrote:PER YOUR INTERPRETATION.

And that, son, is cherry picking.

No, by what the rules actually say. I take what the rules say, apply English language rules to them, and come to a conclusion. Where rules are genuinely unclear, that is when they need FAQs to clarify things.

Nope thats your interpretation. A conclusion is by nature an intepretation. Your interpretation based on what you determine to be the rules of analysis.

The FAQ addressed it did it not? therefore your own statement lacks support "when they need FAQs to clarify things."

Again, you're cherry picking.

Frazzled wrote:Nope thats your interpretation. A conclusion is by nature an intepretation. Your interpretation based on what you determine to be the rules of analysis.

The FAQ addressed it did it not? therefore your own statement lacks support "when they need FAQs to clarify things."

Again, you're cherry picking.

IT WAS NOT UNCLEAR. It was clear from a rules standpoint, but people whined because it changed how it used to work.

13 people agreed with Gwar! on this (so far!), by votes.

That is the odd part to me.

Surely you mean 82?

82+13

82 on my "FAQ's are not official" view.
13 on "Use the FAQ when they actually Apply" view.

Seriously folks, when the guys that create the game say it works one way, and you think they are wrong, it's time to reevaluate the method you are using to obtain your answer.

Consider the fact that it is you who are wrong, not them. There are far, far, FAR fewer inconsistencies and mistakes in the game if you start from the mentality that the rules of 40K are not books of law to be taken literally. That's just a starting point to understanding the message the author is conveying.

I henceforth dub RAW purists as 40K Fundamentalists.

Kaaihn wrote:Seriously folks, when the guys that create the game say it works one way, and you think they are wrong, it's time to reevaluate the method you are using to obtain your answer.

Consider the fact that it is you who are wrong, not them. There are far, far, FAR fewer inconsistencies and mistakes in the game if you start from the mentality that the rules of 40K are not books of law to be taken literally. That's just a starting point to understanding the message the author is conveying.

Ah but you forget, the people who wrote the game did not write half the FAQs. They were too busy getting high and got Yakface to do it.

I henceforth dub RAW purists as 40K Fundamentalists.

No, we are the Scientists. Once the FAQs change to actually be useful, then we will subscribe to the new information. if we were fundamentalists we would ignore the FAQs even if they were declared Hard Errata and came sealed with Jervis' Blood (preferably a LOT of it).

Gwar! wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Nope thats your interpretation. A conclusion is by nature an intepretation. Your interpretation based on what you determine to be the rules of analysis.

The FAQ addressed it did it not? therefore your own statement lacks support "when they need FAQs to clarify things."

Again, you're cherry picking.

IT WAS NOT UNCLEAR. It was clear from a rules standpoint, but people whined because it changed how it used to work.

Again you're saying it was unclear. GW disagreed and issued an FAQ.

No, English says it was unclear. Look at the arguments we previously had. I argued the rules, MGS argued "this is how it used to work".

Only because the FAQ says so. RaW it is not.

Evidently your interpretation of RAW then, was incorrect.

Again you can't pick and choose in the FAQ between what you thinki is correct and what isn't. You have to accept the whole thing, or nothing.

this poll is flawed, it breaks one of the tenets of YMDC. It does not make a clear distinction between RAW and HYWPI.

there is no consideration here to made, the GW faq is Not Official, Gwar proved that with the link to the GW website that says the FAQ is a set of stuido house rules.

You may play all of your games using the FAQ out of simplicity, I am not saying that is wrong, and my FLGS has adopted the FAQs as their own house rules. but it is not official.

If the poll had been worded "how do you accept the FAQS"
a: As our own house rules
b: As trash
c: I dont understand your question
d: I use some of the FAQs when they clear up issues that the rulesbook/codex do not cover, but when they just change what is written arbitratily we ignore them.

Frazzled wrote:
Again you're saying it was unclear. GW disagreed and issued an FAQ.

The FAQ's change the way things work per RAW sometimes. Just because they do, doesn't mean that the way it worked before the FAQ was not RAW.

Frazzled wrote:
Again you can't pick and choose in the FAQ between what you thinki is correct and what isn't. You have to accept the whole thing, or nothing.

Actually you can. Have you read GW's position on the FAQ's?

(even though GWAR! isn't really doing that)

In the real world, utilizing some is cherry picking.

Sorry, work cut off my snarkiness.


13 said "It's unclear to me and I treat each rule on a case by case basis when a question arises".

That read to me to be on the check each ruling/answer for issues side of things.

Gwar! wrote:

I henceforth dub RAW purists as 40K Fundamentalists.

No, we are the Scientists. Once the FAQs change to actually be useful, then we will subscribe to the new information. if we were fundamentalists we would ignore the FAQs even if they were declared Hard Errata and came sealed with Jervis' Blood (preferably a LOT of it).

We are picking apart an off the cuff joke here, but it was a completely valid and relevant comparison.

The most publicly recognized of the five key tenets of Christian Fundamentalism is the usage of the Bible at its literal word, rather than the more widely accepted belief that the written words are simply a medium (a framework, if you will) to convey a concept. Sound familiar?

Ah but you see, Fundamentalism is resistant to change. If GW Changed so they state that the FAQs are Iron Clad "This is how you play it" statements, my view would change. As it is, they do not, so my view is the correct one.

The data in the poll, if it were not already sufficiently flawed by being set up a) in a rules forum, b) on a forum with free accounts, and c) set up to be voted on by self selecting individuals, is even more flawed because the poll option was set to allow multiple choices. Would anyone other than an evil sophist or rules lawyer even bother voting here?

If I were playing against a complete stranger, with no other discussion than "Do you want to play a game? How many points do you have?" then the default for me would be that the rulebook, codices, errata and FAQ's all would apply. As a Reforming Evil Sophist, I am compelled to defend this as the one true way to play, unless the other person enters into rules negotiations before playing.

solkan wrote:The data in the poll, if it were not already sufficiently flawed by being set up a) in a rules forum, b) on a forum with free accounts, and c) set up to be voted on by self selecting individuals, is even more flawed because the poll option was set to allow multiple choices. Would anyone other than an evil sophist or rules lawyer even bother voting here?

If I were playing against a complete stranger, with no other discussion than "Do you want to play a game? How many points do you have?" then the default for me would be that the rulebook, codices, errata and FAQ's all would apply. As a Reforming Evil Sophist, I am compelled to defend this as the one true way to play, unless the other person enters into rules negotiations before playing.