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.

https://archive.is/5OUoK#selection-4064.0-4099.341

Hey there - that’s a great question! We are not the rules team here, so we cannot provide official answers to questions like this one - that's something only the rules team can do via FAQs. The good news is that you can now submit rules questions and feedback directly to the rules team by emailing them at 40KFAQ@gwplc.com. Hope that helps!

So, finally from the horses mouth, Facebook cannot answer rules questions.

So while I certainly agree with your message, I do not see your purpose. Or rather, I see your purpose and feel it's a futile effort.

Warhammer40K on Facebook is still "officially" associated with GW. So there is certainly value in brining up their responses in rules debates.
While you and I are not affiliated in any official capacity with GW, if a FB Q&A supports either of our points when neither of us can agree, it's perfectly valid to "lean" in that direction.

Basically, your post seems very much intended to stop posters from ever referring to FB "answers" ever again. I think you are in for disappointment.

-

Unless they go to the rules team as it seems they did with the DMC and Deepstrike nerf and then relay that info.

This has always been the case, which is why it's specifically mentioned in the YMDC Tenets thread.

That being said, the Facebook guys have at times posted responses directly from the studio, so it's not actually as cut-and-dry as 'Facebook doesn't count'. While passing on answers from the studio may not be as 'official' as an actual FAQ, it's going to be more than sufficient for many players.

Even if it's not official I think it has merit to point to how they play it in their games as part of a discussion on how it *should* be played. If GW plays it a certain way, it's likely (but not guaranteed) that's the intended way to play it.

Wayniac wrote:
Even if it's not official I think it has merit to point to how they play it in their games as part of a discussion on how it *should* be played. If GW plays it a certain way, it's likely (but not guaranteed) that's the intended way to play it.

^This.

-

Answers from FB writers aren't official. However they pass also answers direct from FB...But yeah keep on deluding yourself if you please.

If that was posted on Facebook, your premise invalidates itself by paradox.

Swing-n-a-miss, Slugger.

Why are you even posting this? Literally every single time they make sure to say "we don't do the rules" whenver they comment on a rules question.

 vaklor4 wrote:
Why are you even posting this? Literally every single time they make sure to say "we don't do the rules" whenver they comment on a rules question.

Because this is a windmill BCB loves to tilt at...

 Grimtuff wrote:

 vaklor4 wrote:
Why are you even posting this? Literally every single time they make sure to say "we don't do the rules" whenver they comment on a rules question.

Because this is a windmill BCB loves to tilt at...

to be fair, with how often Facebook seems to be handing out rules issue decisions lately it really should get pointed out more often.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 vaklor4 wrote:
Why are you even posting this? Literally every single time they make sure to say "we don't do the rules" whenver they comment on a rules question.

Because this is a windmill BCB loves to tilt at...

This...the endless nonsense.

Also, do people "claim that Facebook constitutes Rules?" My impression is that people often quote the Facebook team for their attempts to help and give clarity where they can, which seems like a legitimate and fair thing to do, just as it's fair for someone else to point out that such comments are not canon, but I hardly think pointing that out is worthy of a thread on its own.

 greatbigtree wrote:
If that was posted on Facebook, your premise invalidates itself by paradox.

Swing-n-a-miss, Slugger.

Dying. This logic is irrefutable.

As others have said, sometimes they do give guidance direct from the Rules team, and it’s relevant to discuss in rules discussions. They also sometimes comment to give unofficial guidance. Also relevant in discussions. They may rarely give binding rules but any glimpse of intent in odd situations is useful, if you’re trying to play the game. If you’re just trying to be right on the internet, well, I can see how that might be frustrating.

As frustrating as it is, the rules are sometimes written in such a way that multiple interpretations are equally valid. If there's a FB post from GW themselves indicating one interpretation is how they would play it that's going to be good enough for 99.9% of players to show how the rule should be played. The rules exist to serve the game, not provide some test of logic and grammar for internet forums.