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.

Personally I think it should but would like to hear any arguments as to why it should not.

I know that GW says that anything that is not put out officially (pete haines' rules clarifications) is not official but it would seem to me that an FAQ in another language is just as binding as it is still from GW. That is pretty much my only reasoning. So... let the flames begin.

Personally, I would take it with a grain of salt, as somthing is always "lost in the translation."

It just seems to invite even more confusion.  Basically, I would use it like the Pete Haines FAQ from way back.  It might help, it might hurt, but I wouldn't expect it to be accepted as "legally binding" as far as the rules go.  Game AID, not an actual rule.

Because most players won't be able to understand it.

Suppose I had someone at a university an FAQ translated into ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics or cuneiform Assyrian. It's theoretically possible. Would you take note of it? How would you even read it?

Posted By Kilkrazy on 07/09/2006 12:33 AM
Because most players won't be able to understand it.

This is already the case with english rules and english FAQ

For me the reason are:

-The rules are not the same because Codex and chapter approved are not released at the same time or are sometimes released with different rules.
-There is local difference like the metric system use in some languages
-There may be difference because of local laws like those that force some computer game company to remove nazi from games for the german market
-Local FAQ may say the inverse of another local FAQ because it does not look like the left hand of GW talk to the rigth hand when they write rules.

Difference in language only should not be a factor. people play chess in the same way everywhere because the rules are clear in every languages.

In chess the rules are the same in all languages, and they are available in every translation required.

As you noted, the rules of 40K differ between languages. My point is that the FAQs are not available in all the translations needed and it's useless to expect players to use a set of rules they can't understand.

So, you feel that rules your opponent is unable to read should be binding? I wouldn't enforce it and I'm patient enough to just wait for the English version that I and all my opponents all can read.

There's also another important thing, one which correlates with the "lost in translation" remark from 'afore. The games' first edition is english. All others are translations of said english version, thereby making the english version the one that should be followed, should there be a dispute between languages. This is only if said version of the game is supposedly the same; the german version of the rules, for example, are exactly the same as the english version. I still get the english rulebook and codices, just so I can avoid misprints and discrepancies that may have been caused from copying the text from the original rules.
I'm vary of using the spanish FAQ not just because the people who wrote it aren't from the actual rules design team, but also because the spanish rules were noted to use cm's, if I recall correctly. This tells me that it's possible that other rules may work differently as well, even though most likely it's just ones that use Range of any sort.
So while I'm happy for the spanish that they've gotten an FAQ, I'm not going to enforce it over here in Germany. I *would* enforce an english one, for the reasons I and others have listed.

if you don't speak said language, or if your opponent doesn't. i'd say no.

for "lost in translation" reason if nothing else.

there are too many ambiguous issues as it is!

Posted By alarmingrick on 07/09/2006 8:16 AM


if you don't speak said language, or if your opponent doesn't. i'd say no.

for "lost in translation" reason if nothing else.

there are too many ambiguous issues as it is!

Or maybe at each GT there ought to be a spanish speaking judge who can act as an interpreter

And what happens if the FAQ people want to use is in Italian?

There's also another important thing, one which correlates with the "lost in translation" remark from 'afore. The games' first edition is english. All others are translations of said english version, thereby making the english version the one that should be followed, should there be a dispute between languages. This is only if said version of the game is supposedly the same; the german version of the rules, for example, are exactly the same as the english version. I still get the english rulebook and codices, just so I can avoid misprints and discrepancies that may have been caused from copying the text from the original rules.
I'm vary of using the spanish FAQ not just because the people who wrote it aren't from the actual rules design team, but also because the spanish rules were noted to use cm's, if I recall correctly. This tells me that it's possible that other rules may work differently as well, even though most likely it's just ones that use Range of any sort.
So while I'm happy for the spanish that they've gotten an FAQ, I'm not going to enforce it over here in Germany. I *would* enforce an english one, for the reasons I and others have listed.

Just to be clear on this: You are saying that you are in Germany and would accept an English Language FAQ as binding, but not a spanish language one? If this is correct, what about a german language FAQ? Next question is, what if a German FAQ was put out and later an english FAQ was put out that contradicted it, which do you follow?

Of course the third one may SEEM far fetched but it seems to be that there is a good chance that when GW finally puts out the english language FAQ on Pathfinders, that it will contradict the Spanish language FAQ that is already out because they did put out an FAQ on the last Tau codex noting that the pathfinder Devilfish did scout.

PLEASE DO NOT TAKE THIS AND MAKE IT ABOUT THE PATHFINDERS!!! There has been enough written on that subject on this board for at least a couple of months. Or until an FAQ comes out on it in another language.

You know, I could translate that FAQ for everybody and fix the glaring mistakes they made in lacking internal consistancy. If they use RAW for Tyranids and Tau, they obviously had a typo with marines when they didn't so I can just translate that into English and everybody would feel free to use mine, right?

The Spanish FAQ was not done consistantly, nor has the English site put one on. The fact that GW has not done an FAQ in a year is telling about the current state of the company.

Posted by happypants on 07/08/2006 11:42 PM
I know that GW says that anything that is not put out officially (pete haines' rules clarifications) is not official but it would seem to me that an FAQ in another language is just as binding as it is still from GW.

So you'd be okay using a FAQ written by GW's janitor? After all, he's 'from GW', right? Only the Design Studio has the authority to make official rules and FAQs for the game, not just any old employee.

Somehow, i doubt an article published on a company website is going to be a "local" thing; just because it's GW Spain, it doesn't make it "some local guy". The home office controls all intellectual property; if they objected, it'd be gone already.

Posted By midnight on 07/09/2006 10:42 PM
You know, I could translate that FAQ for everybody and fix the glaring mistakes they made in lacking internal consistancy. If they use RAW for Tyranids and Tau, they obviously had a typo with marines when they didn't so I can just translate that into English and everybody would feel free to use mine, right?

The Spanish FAQ was not done consistantly, nor has the English site put one on. The fact that GW has not done an FAQ in a year is telling about the current state of the company.

Really don't see the point in making the "lacking of internal consistency" an issue for accepting or not the Spanish FAQ...

Following RAW the terminator squads description isn?t consistent with the terminator armour description, yet the SM Codex is generally accepted as rules base... So you may be discussing if you will follow or not a set of rules that is not written in your home language, but you shouldn?t take out credit for the Spanish FAQ due to its inconsistence.

Posted by happypants on 07/08/2006 11:42 PM
I know that GW says that anything that is not put out officially (pete haines' rules clarifications) is not official but it would seem to me that an FAQ in another language is just as binding as it is still from GW.

So you'd be okay using a FAQ written by GW's janitor? After all, he's 'from GW', right? Only the Design Studio has the authority to make official rules and FAQs for the game, not just any old employee.

But that is exactly my point Ghaz, an FAQ posted on an official GW website (not a forum) is NOT just written by any employee, or ex-employee. It is an official FAQ.

What I think is going to be interesting is if/when GW puts out contradictory FAQ's in english from those that are out in spanish/german/japanese right now.

Posted By happypants on 07/10/2006 7:45 AM

Posted by happypants on 07/08/2006 11:42 PM
I know that GW says that anything that is not put out officially (pete haines' rules clarifications) is not official but it would seem to me that an FAQ in another language is just as binding as it is still from GW.

So you'd be okay using a FAQ written by GW's janitor? After all, he's 'from GW', right? Only the Design Studio has the authority to make official rules and FAQs for the game, not just any old employee.

But that is exactly my point Ghaz, an FAQ posted on an official GW website (not a forum) is NOT just written by any employee, or ex-employee. It is an official FAQ.

What I think is going to be interesting is if/when GW puts out contradictory FAQ's in english from those that are out in spanish/german/japanese right now.

I personally don't have a problem with an FAQ from another country, especially when the actual 'english' version was posted on Dakka shortly thereafter (even though it was not from the GW site, it was the same FAQ in english). 

What I think will be interesting, will be when GW puts out an FAQ, and people don't like the rulings.  All of a sudden the 'officiality' will continue to be called into question, and there will be much gnashing of teeth.  I mean, people discount Pete Haines' 'game aids' because they don't like Pete Haines.  Sheesh...

FAQ's:  be careful what you wish for. 

-Nope not valid. As has been noted each language has its own unique divergences, and the FAQ may be specifically tailored to address that.
While the different language FAQ may provide insight thats all it does.

-Frankly if you're showing up with a different language FAQ trying to use that, the OCD level has gotten high and I doubt I'd be playing you anyway.

Posted By happypants on 07/10/2006 7:45 AM
But that is exactly my point Ghaz, an FAQ posted on an official GW website (not a forum) is NOT just written by any employee, or ex-employee. It is an official FAQ.

Actually, if not written by the studio(the only place that declares what is and isn't official/legal), then yes, it is written by just any employee, even if on an official site. If you want me to get you proof of that, I'll contact Nick Davis(who used to do the GWUS site and worked on White Dwarf) and get him to tell you about how "official" the official sites are.

Didnt GW declare in one of their FAQs that the english version takes precidence in the event of a conflict between it and any other language. Also, the most recent version is always in charge.

Try to write the rules from memory in whatever language you want. The conflicts that arise between what you write and what the rules actually say are exactly the same problems that ocure when you translate things. The translators dont make official rules, they just translate things and when translations occure they always have mistakes. GW studios thinks out the rules (they probabally think) then the translators who probabally dont care to much about the game try to translate them.

The most recent one is in charge because it is usually a series of corrections, nothing more (again, other languages FAQs will have translation errors).

@happypants

Yes, I am indeed in germany, and I would accept a german FAQ...although such a thing has never existed, in the past (only translations and collections of earlier FAQ's available in english). However, since the german rule set does *NOT* differ from the english one in the least (unlike some other language versions that use cm's instead of english), I would rule in favor of the english FAQ, should one appear that would contradict a hypothetical Germany-only FAQ. (I do not think this is a far-fetched scenario at all, actually. Just in germany, there has been no precedent for this type of thing yet.)

The Reason for me accepting a hypothetical german FAQ at all would be due to most people at our tourneys being familiar with them, and a german one is better than none. However, everyone at our club events knows that the original english versions are binding, FAQ or otherwise.

Also, if I were Spanish, I would think differently on the subject. IIRC, their system is slightly different, so I would use the Spanish FAQ over the english ones, for the same reasons that I have enumerated in my previous post.

Posted by Son of Tzeentch on 07/10/2006 1:26 PM
However, since the german rule set does *NOT* differ from the english one in the least.

Are you sure? From my understanding due to a discussion on another board is that they *DO* differ in that the German rulebook allows rapid fire weapons to fire one shot at targets upto 12", something which is clearly not allowed by the English rules.

In the UKGT the tournament rules stipulate that only Enligh-language books may be used, so this problem never arises. I assume tournaments in other countries make a similar language stipulation to avoid confusion. As for friendly games, you can do whatever your opponent agrees with. However, turning up with a Babelfished version of a foreign language document will probably be met with a mixture of amusement and derision.

I personally believe that things posted by the company should be given a lot more credit. The FAQ recently released has been translated a number of times. There are inconsistancies that are still up on the current FAQs on the US Site, that would take seconds to clear up, but no one has done it. I am glad someone atleast is working for us.

A forum is different. Any old employee can go there and without any checks post whatever he wants. You have to jump through hoops to get things posted on corp sites, which is what the GW websites are. Unless the FAQ is written by the IT Team, you have to assume it has been cleared all the way up the channels atleast at that branch. You would see it yanked right quick if it wasn't.

@Ghaz:
Aye, I'm sure. Stuff like this is exactly what I mean: small differences only caused by an error in translation. You will (or to be more precise, would find if you had access and the means to view the different language codices and FAQ's) that errors such as these, while few and far between, are easily spotted.

Of course I can only speak for the gaming areas that I've attended, but it is quite obvious that they (the rules) are meant to be the same - with no need to fish for something as nebulous as designer's intent. Some of the errors that crop up due to this are also fixed via FAQ - which then shows the way the english rules would work.

An example: In the 1st version of the current chaos codex, the language of the doom siren in the german codex stated that it simply strikes first (ironically, it is now worded that way in the newest english codex, but that's besides the point). Shortly thereafter, the english online FAQ, and the german white dwarf FAQ (translation of said english online FAQ) changed this to the language of the then correct, english codex version (i.e. slightly different plasma grenades).

It still proves that your claim was false. The German rulebook does differ from the English version, so why should we assume a German FAQ won't differ as well?

-There may be difference because of local laws like those that force some computer game company to remove nazi from games for the german market

 

Are the Germans still trying to say that WW2 never happened?

@Ghaz: Like I said, you could make a case that that is indeed the case, and like I said, without showing you the actual printings it's hard to show one otherwise. There are differences, but due to the way they are handled by the design team, they are unintended and fixed over time. Those that remain...well, those are your case.
What I'm saying is this is one of those things that everyone over here plays it, even though the printed rules usually have some catching up to do.
So you are technically right, but in practise, this isn't how it's played, due to how these types of things have been handled in the past.


@World Eater Primarch
Nazi symbology is banned due to the national revilement of the nazi's. They aren't allowed to be published to undermine any efforts of Neo-nazism.
You're thinking of a small but vocal International group who try to downplay the horrors of the Holocaust. Pretty much everyone over here hates them too. But there's free speech fer ya. Since Nazi-esque stuff is banned, the only way these few individuals can express themselves is through this sort of thing.
Oh and Germans does not equal Nazis. I'm sure you're just not well informed and didn't mean that as an insult, but there ya go anyway.

*edit doesn't work fer me*

It still pisses me off that they remove the symbology though - it usually ruins good otherwise video games. It also goes against what I consider free speech should be; to deem bannable in one place to the exclusion of others, no matter the intent, is wrong. And today, no longer needed. Unless we're talking aboot taking over the world, then it'd be neccessary I guess

Yup, was definatly a joke, though, from what we learn, Germany did not issue a statement acknowledging the war, the camps, and held many documents from the UN for many years after the war. And yes, I do no that all Germans do not = Nazi's..... even though I'm from Texas.... and am just a cowboy who rides to school on my bronco and spends the rest of the day workin on my oil rig in my backyard while shooting engines on the frontier.... they still done edjumacated me proper..... (bad grammar intended for amusement). And yes, your blight definatly sounds like a human rights violation and a violation of the Freedom of Speech Act.... passed in the United States (Which means the rest of the world has to follow it too!), and even though I'm in no way in agreement with the nazi's..... I'd still fight and die for your right to shoot them in video games. Looks like America has some more invading to do......