frightnight wrote:Mods, feel free to move this if it better belongs in a discussion forum.
Rule 2 states: The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop
FAQs. Emails from Games Workshop are easily spoofed and are notorious for being inconsistent and so should not be relied on.
As a player from the bad old days of 3rd/4th ed, I know too well why this rule exists.
FAQs were rare in the extreme, and didn't cover the actual major rules issues of the day.
GW was unresponsive to questions, and when they had their rulesboyz phone line to call, you often got 3 different answers in 2 different calls. We had to clarify that you had to go by
RAW, because designer's intent was utterly unknowable from the stony silence we received from the
HQ, unless one counted the puff pieces in
WD that often got basic things wrong.
However, this is a new day for
GW. They are posting regularly, even if they aren't in
FAQ form. Through documents like the Designer Commentary, or other Community posts, we have a window into how rules are intended to be played. We know that
CSM players should be using the Index datasheet for stats and rules, and the latest points from the Codex for their cost.
I understand that this is not an "official" document, and perhaps for some cases we should defer to the
FAQ. But for some others such as the points issue above, where commentary is made through official
GW channels, should that rule be relaxed in this brave, new world of actual interaction?