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.

Hmm now is FAQ RAI or RAW? To me FAQ is Frequently Asked Question. Now if that was Errata that specifically replaces what is written in a book, do the FAQ really overide anything? All it is, is a question that is asked over and over again, but changes nothing, while an errata does change what was bascially written in stone.

I thought I read somewhere GW dosn't do FAQ's or changes the rules online, so I am not shure if the FAQ can be taken as legal. But I like to play and don't argue this and just shut up and play no matter what.

Per GW, Eratta is official and FAQ are GW House Rules. However, Tournements play by the GW FAQ. As for FAQ being RAI vs RAW, in theory, you should only need a FAQ if the RAW is unclear or unattainable...however, that is not always the case with GW FAQ as some people simply ask a lot of "bad" questions even though the rules are clear to a "reasonable person" standard or because they forget/miss a rule (which is understandable).

Semantics really

Are FAQs the rules? No not according to RAW :p but I havent met a person who refuses to use GW FAQs (and intends to be taken seriously)

Thats why Judicial decisions are cited in courts.. precedence

I laugh at the idea that GW can't even release a FAQ with rules clarifications without allowing themselves the backdoor statement "these are really more of our house rules, they aren't set in stone." Whats the point then? They already tell people to clarify things themselves in grey areas, so why say that their answers, the people who designed and supposedly tested the rules, aren't any more applicable? Silly

I suppose you could justify the Thunderwolves changing the rider's base toughness in the same fashion that Tau Battlesuits do; they are so big and furry that there is no way you can hit the rider without the blast having to go through the beast first.

Railguns wrote:"these are really more of our house rules, they aren't set in stone."

It is paradoxical.

An FAQ that is made of win.

I think this fixes every problem and big argument we SW players have been having since the codex came out

- Termie characters can take a frostblade, good.
- Bjorn's special rule fixed, good.
- clarifying that wolf guard work pretty much how we all expected them to pedants aside, excellent
- scouts with a pack leader may OBEL, very excellent!
- Jaws clarifications, at last the arguments will cease
- Arjac can join other squads means Arjac jumps from fairly useless to an unbelievable bargain that renders the WGBL entry fairly pointless and yells "I am mandatory" for every drop pod SW army out there
- TWolfs are natural S/T 5, I suspected they'd rule this way just to make sense with the actual Tcav entry. Wolf Lords on Wolves are now the consumate badasses of 40K, who needs a daemon prince.
- Saga of the Iron Wolf actually has a purpose now, still crap but not pointless and crap
- statisbomb works against vehicles, and Lukas now becomes the preimere titan killer we all thought he was at first.


The only weird stuff is the Ragnar stuff. The defensive grenade clarification is good. The berserk + Ragnar gives you a min +2 is weird but means that he is actually worth fielding with BC's which is good because that' fluffy. However the fact that FC works on the counter-attack comes completely from out of nowhere. That one isn't a rules clarification its a straight up BRB rules change. If this is precedent then there is some pretty nasty abuse out there. I don't think this is needed and is my only disappointment with this codex.

I think there is errata in here, as well as FAQ - the first page is actually adding/replacing items in the Codex itself - such as with Frost Blades etc.

lords2001 wrote:I think there is errata in here, as well as FAQ - the first page is actually adding/replacing items in the Codex itself - such as with Frost Blades etc.

The first page is also entitled 'Errata'

On the upside, now I get to carry around a FAQ for a completely unrelated army as proof that the termagants my opponent just charged actually have counter attack AND furious charge at the same time.

GW stated that their FAQs are in a way house rules. That is not by any means the same as saying they are indeed house rules. The rules lawyers.... Erhmmmm, RAW advocates just use the statement as another failed attempt at RAW to dq the FAQs. To me that is pretty silly.

G

bhsman wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Again, it is not wrong because I disagree with the faq, it's wrong because it is notn what the rules say.

And again, these are the rules. They are not right or wrong, they simply are.

LMFAO.

Try reading the GW website, ya know, the part where they freely admit the FAQ means jack gak.

Gwar! wrote:LMFAO.

Try reading the GW website, ya know, the part where they freely admit the FAQ means jack gak.

EDIT: I apologize for that, let me be more concise: Do you understand the difference between de facto and de jure? It's important here.

bhsman wrote:

Gwar! wrote:LMFAO.

Try reading the GW website, ya know, the part where they freely admit the FAQ means jack gak.

EDIT: I apologize for that, let me be more concise: Do you understand the difference between de facto and de jure? It's important here.

No, because I am an uneducated twit who knows nothing. </Sarcasm>

insaniak wrote:It's not really a rulebook issue. Jetbikes have always been considered a sub-category of bikes.

Oops, checked the BRB and you are right, jet bikes are not a separate unit entry but a sub box located underneath the actual unit entry Bike. I stand corrected

Yes, technically GW does not wish to have the FAQs enforced for the convenience of the player who does not have ready access to a computer, a printer, or just knowledge that an FAQ to exist.

However, such coddling is nonexistant when it comes to GW-sponsored or independent tournaments where FAQs are, effectively, de facto, the law.

So yea, the FAQs technically don't mean squat. Only technically.

You're excused, Gwar. We know trolls can't read!

All sillyness aside:
Interesting. Very interesting. It makes me very intrigued and tempted by my idea of a Wolf Guard heavy army led by Blackmane/Njal.

WOLFWING, GOOOOO

Gwar! wrote:Try reading the GW website, ya know, the part where they freely admit the FAQ means jack gak.

Fortunately or unfortunately, tournies and the majority of 40K players have ruled that GW FAQs are case law, therefore official and that GW is an idiot for stating otherwise. Democracy in action and all that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:No, because I am an uneducated twit who knows nothing. </Sarcasm>

So, when did you start being sarcastic

Demrocracy in action? I don't think so. If it was what we all voted on, we wouldn't be paying taxes now eh?

I, too, could do without paid policemen and public roads.

Great FAQ, all of my issues were resolved.

Gwar! wrote:

bhsman wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Again, it is not wrong because I disagree with the faq, it's wrong because it is notn what the rules say.

And again, these are the rules. They are not right or wrong, they simply are.

LMFAO.

Try reading the GW website, ya know, the part where they freely admit the FAQ means jack gak.

And yet, you would waste your time making your own and advertise it like people should really give a rat's? Quit being silly. There is not a single rule in the rulebook that is not, essentially, a studio house rule. In the comfort of your own cave, you can choose to play and ignore whatever rules you want, be they in the rulebook or in the FAQ. But in tournaments, there has to be a common denominator. GW rules and FAQs happen to be that denominator.

Your argument about what the rules actually say will be useless in the vast majority of tournaments, because those tournaments use GW FAQs (when they are available), and those FAQs are the rules.

Rated G wrote:And yet, you would waste your time making your own and advertise it like people should really give a rat's?

Protip: Do I look like I give two gaks? No. Use my FAQ or Don't. At least I try and Keep things within the rules, and clearly label them and provide the Rules as Written Answer when they are Rules Changes.

I'm happy I can officially replace my Wolf Scouts' CCWs with Power Weapons, and not have to exchange their bolt pistols. Just seemed like an oversight when I first read it.

One thing that I'm less certain about than before is can a WGBL with Saga of the Hunter outflank with Wolf Scouts? I thought the answer was no, but the FAQ reads, "He can only join an outflanking unit if he has the ability to outflank because of the Saga of the Hunter." But if he joins the unit, doesn't that unit lose infiltrate and scouts, and therefore the ability to outflank? Gives me a headache just thinking about.

Note to self... things to look out for:
1. Crossing the streams
2. Shoe Event Horizon
3. Outflank Paradox

There's a similar argument for it going on at B&C, actually.

Gut instinct would say no, because the IC doesn't have the BEL rules. If the squad was joined by a SotH WGBL or Lord, they could only perform a regular Outflank move.

I assume Protip is cool internet lingo? They don't have to keep things "within the rules" because they write the rules. You, on the other hand, do not write the rules.

FAQS are as official as two people playing a game together or a TO makes them. This argument is so done to death it is ridiculous and to argue anything else is assinine.

TO?

bhsman wrote:TO?

Terrifying Ostriches?
Taciturn Otters?

Hmm, Tournament Organizers fits the bill better I think.

Ah, I see. Appreciate it.

Rated G wrote:I assume Protip is cool internet lingo? They don't have to keep things "within the rules" because they write the rules. You, on the other hand, do not write the rules.

The funny thing is, I do write the rules, considering half that FAQ is poached from mine.

So there.