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 use lots of rulings I don't like, both GW FAQs and INAT. I won't use a foreign language one for the reasons already stated, not because I might disagree with the ruling.

This isn't really about it being spanish.

It is about deciding which FAQ carries more weight if there is a difference.
Most of us will agree that the english FAQ trumps all others. If only for the fact that GW and the game is of english origin.

Brother Ramses wrote:Well, English also isn't the only language people speak either.

I speak English. Everybody I have ever played speaks English. My rulebook is in English, as is every other copy sold in this country.

It's not unreasonable to refuse to play by rules written in a different language when you have no way of confirming what those rules actually say.

Like I said, pretty obtuse to take a FAQ and dismiss it just because it isn't in English.

It's not being dismissed just because it's not in English. It's being dismissed because it's not in English and its origin is uncertain.

Even moreso when it seems you just won't use it because you don't like the ruling.

I play Orks. I happen to not only like the ruling but think it reflects the RAW. The only reason I haven't already been playing that way is that there is too much wailing and gnashing of teeth over the issue. Well, and because I don't actually have any rollas on vehicles in my army. I still wouldn't accept an FAQ ruling on it in a different language.

Not only that, but the Spanish site has newer versions of different FAQs too - Necrons May, 2009 and other equally updated FAQs. Also, they have the beginning of a Tyranid 2010 FAQ at the bottom. Come to think of it, some other sites have Chaos Daemon FAQs and GW USA doesn't.

Brother Ramses wrote:Well, English also isn't the only language people speak either.

Like I said, pretty obtuse to take a FAQ and dismiss it just because it isn't in English. Even moreso when it seems you just won't use it because you don't like the ruling.

You also seem to be making an assumption that people who are holding off on accepting this FAQ are doing so because they don't like the ruling, which certainly isn't the case across the board.

I don't personally care one way or another...the two rulings just make the army play very differently, but I'm actually all for it since Orks have very limited ways to attack AV14 vehicles.

However, as has been pointed out, similar situations have occurred in the past where there were discrepancies between languages and GW has always gone with the concept that the English version is the 'master' version. So it is very curious to have a FAQ question/answer only in certain language FAQs. That is fishy, and it makes people wonder whether this is something official that will be rolled out across all the FAQs or whether it is simply a mistake implemented by lower level employees superseding their authority, in which case the foreign language FAQs will be rescinded.

I don't see why you can't understand why people would be skeptical of this situation and be looking for the FAQ to be released in English, which is the core language of the publishing company.

yakface wrote:It also goes to show that you really can't count on any information given out by the games designers when it comes to rules calls, because unless they're the person actually writing the FAQ, you never know what you're going to get. . .oh well.

Or a fan based one written in the UK? Hopefully this means the inat crew will stop being so wishy washy about their rulings...

yakface wrote:So IMHO, assuming that FAQ gets pushed across the board I think in general you assume that vehicles that are able to tank shock are also able to ram, except for the DE ruling which you consider an exception to the rule.

At least that's my first thoughts on the matter.

Let's hope the UK thinks the same way...

I ran into a similar language issue just prior to the Nid release, everyone wanted to play the new nids using translated codex. Sorry but I dont speak german, I dont want to play something that hasnt been published in my language, which lucky for me happens to be the language GW runs off of.

I personally don't care one way or the other if orks get it, it has little to no bearing on me personally, just 1 more thing to be aware of.
Will i play it this way before it gets released in english? no, not if my opponent wants a serious game.

Would you let other people show up to games and show you translated rules from other languages that you had no way of knowing prior to said game? especially if it were serious in nature? umm i think we can all say the answer would be HELL NO because its borderline cheating.

What I find interesting is that we seem to have a split between people who are saying that this rule proves that you can Roll vehicles, and those who seem to be of the opinion that this invalidates the previous arguments for Rolling vehicles.

I mean, from what I've seen, this issue seems to come down to player choice - no one has yet managed to convince the other side that their view is the only correct one.

I guess I just worry that this will be an excuse for people to say 'no, that's in Spanish so you can't Deffrolla vehicles', and ignore the discussions that people used to have about it.

I know this won't be a huge effect, as in most cases Ork players tended to abide by the unofficial FAQs and the sportsmanlike 'path of least benefit', but it's still interesting to note.

TL;DR version: Would you respond differently to someone saying "my Deff Rollas work on vehicles because (X)" than to "My Deff Rollas work on vehicles because the Spanish and Italian FAQs say so." ?

Orkestra wrote:What I find interesting is that we seem to have a split between people who are saying that this rule proves that you can Roll vehicles, and those who seem to be of the opinion that this invalidates the previous arguments for Rolling vehicles.

I mean, from what I've seen, this issue seems to come down to player choice - no one has yet managed to convince the other side that their view is the only correct one.

I guess I just worry that this will be an excuse for people to say 'no, that's in Spanish so you can't Deffrolla vehicles', and ignore the discussions that people used to have about it.

I know this won't be a huge effect, as in most cases Ork players tended to abide by the unofficial FAQs and the sportsmanlike 'path of least benefit', but it's still interesting to note.

TL;DR version: Would you respond differently to someone saying "my Deff Rollas work on vehicles because (X)" than to "My Deff Rollas work on vehicles because the Spanish and Italian FAQs say so." ?

because 'X' > other language faq

Orkestra wrote:TL;DR version: Would you respond differently to someone saying "my Deff Rollas work on vehicles because (X)" than to "My Deff Rollas work on vehicles because the Spanish and Italian FAQs say so." ?

Well, yes, of course. If you disagree with a given premise, your answer is going to be different depending on the reason given.

If you meant 'Would you be more likely to accept an argument based on the rules rather than on a Spanish FAQ' then the answer is a very definite 'Yes'... FAQ's in other languages are not a valid source of rules in a discussion in English of an English-written ruleset.

So, this is getting a bit far-fetched, but bear with me.

What if someone were to show up at your game with a Spanish rulebook and the Spanish FAQ, and proceed to show you that <Ramming is a special kind of Armoured Brutality> and that the FAQ says that <Ramming is a special kind of Armoured Brutality> so it works?

Where does the argument fail because it's the wrong language, given that from the sounds of it, they use consistent wordings too?

It fails because while the rulebook has the same phrasing, there is no matching English verion FAQ saying what the Spanish FAQ says. And until there is, we don't know whether or not the Spanish one is correct. Get it? The non-English portions of GW have done this before, released an FAQ, only to have to pull it or correct it when the English one came out. Bottom line, until the FAQ is in English, it doesn't count.

Orkestra wrote:So, this is getting a bit far-fetched, but bear with me.

What if someone were to show up at your game with a Spanish rulebook and the Spanish FAQ, and proceed to show you that <Ramming is a special kind of Armoured Brutality> and that the FAQ says that <Ramming is a special kind of Armoured Brutality> so it works?

Where does the argument fail because it's the wrong language, given that from the sounds of it, they use consistent wordings too?

I would say that english is the native language spoken here, that is the default language to be played in. I do not speak/read spanish and since we are in a native english country not to be a dick, but the spanish book/faq would be just as good a use as toilet paper after a night of whiskey.

Orkestra wrote:Where does the argument fail because it's the wrong language, given that from the sounds of it, they use consistent wordings too?

It fails because it relies on a foreign-language FAQ that is different to the English one. It's already been explained several times through this thread why that's a problem.

Well, you all think that I'm an idiot clearly, but I'm just poking at the fact that there seems to be a general consensus that this FAQ is an argument against the Deffrolla working on vehicles, unless you're in Spain or Italy.

Especially given the colourful turns of phrases, it seems likely to me that many people would reply to a friendly "hey, I know there's some confusion about the Deffrolla, can we discuss it?" with "Oh yeah, there's a Spanish FAQ about it, so it doesn't work."


The arguments and logic are the same, it just seems like people are taking this as a mark against the pro-deffrolla arguments.

Orkestra wrote:Well, you all think that I'm an idiot clearly, but I'm just poking at the fact that there seems to be a general consensus that this FAQ is an argument against the Deffrolla working on vehicles, unless you're in Spain or Italy.

Especially given the colourful turns of phrases, it seems likely to me that many people would reply to a friendly "hey, I know there's some confusion about the Deffrolla, can we discuss it?" with "Oh yeah, there's a Spanish FAQ about it, so it doesn't work."


The arguments and logic are the same, it just seems like people are taking this as a mark against the pro-deffrolla arguments.

i dont think your an idiot i was just poking fun at the situation you presented in a friendly gmae 4+ because i really dont care... in a tourny id say your SOL

It sounds like the Spanish rules were unclear about the deffrolla being able to ram where unlike the English rules it’s quite clear they can. All the Spanish FAQ is doing is making clarity of their rules but I don’t expect there to be an English version because no need for one.

So what your getting at Orkestra is that now we have a FAQ saying (paraphrase) 'Yes it works on vehicles for x reasons' You don't like how people are saying this just proves Rollas never worked on vehicles???
Fair-a-bloody-nuff especially as the FAQ is just clarifying that - yes - Ramming is a (special) type of tankshock. For the Spanish speaking people - you know - who might not have the gramma constructions to make clear what ramming is a special type of tankshock means in their rulebook, i mean geez english speaking people seems to already been having trouble

Orkestra wrote:Well, you all think that I'm an idiot clearly, but I'm just poking at the fact that there seems to be a general consensus that this FAQ is an argument against the Deffrolla working on vehicles, unless you're in Spain or Italy.

No, it's neither an argument for or against the Deffrolla working, it's a non-entity until/unless it comes out in an English version. Get it yet? Without an English version saying the same thing (or the opposite), the Spanish one is completely irrelevant either way.

Orkestra wrote:... but I'm just poking at the fact that there seems to be a general consensus that this FAQ is an argument against the Deffrolla working on vehicles, unless you're in Spain or Italy.

Sorry, but I have no idea where you got that idea from.

It's not an argument against anything. It's an FAQ in Spanish that may be a preview of the official English FAQ... or may be just the opinion of someone from GW Spain.

By itself, it proves nothing one way or the other.

Well hopefully all this buzz, as this news just hit BoLS, gets us an english answer to this question.

I'd love to have a definitive answer, in English, from GW UK.

I still have to wonder if they didn't address it in the Ork FAQ because they thought it was clear in the RAW... but that's been addressed ad nauseum, so... still waiting for orks to be competitive in the meched-up world.

I do believe that they didn't address it since they feel it's clear. GW is known to not answer questions they feel are "dumb."

Also, not that anyone cares, but at GD last year, my group asked Phil Kelly the question, and he said it did work. Not that that has any official bearing, but it was nice to hear it from him.

Intereting about Phil Kelly. Cause I think it was it the 2008 Baltimore Games Day that I asked him the same question and he told me no............... I was wondering how to call it during the tourney since I was the head judge.

Hoorah. We'll know more tomorrow when/if they decide to release this in English but for now: a big cheer for everyone else who was arguing that squares were in fact just special kinds of rectangles.

Another thing: I get how they make the English codex the "'(official)'" one but can yall make it sound any more ethnocentric? There are a few colonialists out here who didn't quite pick up on it yet.

Until it is in English, this does not fly. I would have loved, LOVED to use cheap Rhinos/Razorbacks for my old Wolves, because the German FAQ let me. Did I? No, because it was not in the English FAQ.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

imweasel wrote:

yakface wrote:It also goes to show that you really can't count on any information given out by the games designers when it comes to rules calls, because unless they're the person actually writing the FAQ, you never know what you're going to get. . .oh well.

Or a fan based one written in the UK? Hopefully this means the inat crew will stop being so wishy washy about their rulings...

Errm... The INAT is written in the US?

don_mondo wrote:Intereting about Phil Kelly. Cause I think it was it the 2008 Baltimore Games Day that I asked him the same question and he told me no............... I was wondering how to call it during the tourney since I was the head judge.

We have the same experience here...which is exactly why I made the comment about not trusting even the codex of the author when it comes to these kinds of 'off-the-cuff' rulings.

There is absolutely no guarantee that even the codex author is going to be the one writing the FAQ and we have no idea what kind of process the FAQ goes through. They could easily just hand it off to one designer and say, 'answer these' and he does so without any discussion with anyone else. We really have no idea...

Like I said before GW doesn’t thinks it’s unclear in the English rules (it fits into RAW, RAI, fluff, and RAP) so they wont update the English FAQ. Updating the Spanish FAQ tell us a few things one being that the Spanish rules were unclear about tank shocks being rams. A more likely reason is that they got so much flack over the deff rolla question they wanted to settle it while at the same time saving face by putting out the Spanish FAQ.

It doesn’t matter what the reason was, the argument is settled now and forever. It’s time to let go and move on. Let the healing begin.

Users are reminded not to make personal attacks, spam the threads and generally PO the MODs early in the morning.
Ta.

I can also echo the experiences of Messrs. Yakface and don_mondo : I helped write the UK GT FAQ they did a year or two back and we managed to snag soem face to face and emails with some of the design team. We got quiet different answers... I guess theories would perhaps be more apt, with regards to certain rules and queries.

*shrugs*

As a side note, at least in the spanish version of the rulebook and codex it is perfectly clear that ramming (embestida) is a special kind of tank shock (brutalidad acorazada). I think that the main problem is, as funny as it may be, that the ramming header is the same font size as the tank shock header. It should be smaller and there would be no problem.