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.

This thread has been purged of the off-topic conversation.

Whether or not one chooses to use the GW FAQs in their games is not pertinent to this conversation so please let it drop.


All the players who *do* use the GW FAQs, including all tournaments I know of, will find this information at least interesting. If you personally choose not to utilize the GW FAQs, that is of course, your right and backed up by GW's policy on their FAQ (or any of their rules, for that matter), but please let the discussion continue for the vast majority of players who do choose to utilize these FAQs.

I hope this sticks. Orks have the worst anti-armor in the game without this.

orkcommander wrote:The bottom line answer has always been there it is clearly RAW: any tank shock = a special tank shock no English FAQ needed. It has just been confirmed by the Spanish & Itallian FAQ.

An FAQ should answer questions the players feel are unanswered, period. Regardless of what the design team thinks is clear RAW. The Deffrolla issue is in my experience, both here and at games, a clearly contested issue no matter what GW thinks.

A metaphor: Often when I prowl for vintage car parts on eBay I won't find what I'm looking for if I use the proper factory code. I have to revert to more imprecise "common" names, because they are common. I can insist on only searching for names I think are "correct", but it won't make me happier. Communication doesn't work that way.

Are there any other clarificaitons of note in the Italian or Spanish Ork FAQ?

Actually there are a lot of clarifications and notes, are you looking for something in particular?

We have 2 FAQs that provide this answer, the Spanish one and the Italian one. The English one does not contradict this question, it simply doesn't cover it.

So, 2 FAQs from 2 languages answer this question. The other does not cover it. It is the last question and has therefore been 'tacked on' at the end following the ongoing disputes about it.

The question is answered.

Deffrollas affect vehicles. If your expecting ork players to wait to use this, simply based on GW 'getting around' to updating the English FAQ, they you're employing their tardiness to your own advantage and not being a good sport.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Deffrollas affect vehicles. If your expecting ork players to wait to use this, simply based on GW 'getting around' to updating the English FAQ, they you're employing their tardiness to your own advantage and not being a good sport.

Hold on there. I think you're going a bit overboard when you imply that someone who didn't want to use a foreign language FAQ is being a bad sport.

Don't get me wrong, I also agree with you that an opponent who is a good sport should indeed consider the foreign language FAQ in lieu of any answer in the english one, but by the same token it wouldn't be very good sportsmanship IMHO for the Ork player to expect that his opponent will abide by the foreign language FAQ.

Instead it should be brought up within the strange context it currently exists...the Ork player should present what information he has and mention that, while it is strange that no english version is currently out, that the likelihood is that this represents the eventual update that the english language version will get, and as such, would the opponent mind utilizing the clarification as-is now.

In other words, it should be discussed as with anything else that is a bit murky.


And why do I say it is murky? Well again, it is simply 'odd' to have a foreign language version get the update and not the english language version. 90% of the time this is simply a release snafu and we will have an updated English version within a week or two...

But let's say in a week or two instead these updates disappear from the foreign language version...what 'message' would that send? That Deff Rollas don't affect vehicles when ramming? I think that's what your opponent might want to claim were this to happen.

So anyway, I just want to point out that these are strange circumstances and I don't think it is crazy for anyone to want to wait a few days for validation anymore then you go up to the counter at a store when you find two of the same item marked with different prices.

Unfortunately in this case, the only way we can get validation is to wait and hope that GW either updates the English FAQ or removes the references from the foreign language ones.

Isn't Alessio Italian? So the FAQ is in the native tongue of the author!

And what happens if neither of those happens? Lets say two months from now the Spanish and Italian FAQs still cheerfully say the same thing, but there is no English FAQ change.

Question ... Why would you think that you can use a FAQ from another language?

Hypothetically ... If i found a FAQ for a weapon in japan that states some thing like "As always double the range" would you assume that you could also double the range on the English version? No, the reason for the text would simply be a clarification since all measurements are double over there as they measure in CM not Inches.

You've got to use the FAQ version in language you are playing in.

No voy usar la Apizonadora de muerte para este, por que no es 'fluffy'. Es para usar contra unidades.

Tri wrote:You've got to use the FAQ version in language you are playing in.

Ahora, yo soy espanol!!!!

Where is your machine god now, landraiders?

This isn't a contradiction of any official FAQ or position (like double range weapons), just a clarification of a grey area that happens to be in another language. As the only sort of answer GW has given to this question, it is likely to at least influence TO's stances in the future.

Tri wrote:
You've got to use the FAQ version in language you are playing in.

Says who?

If it came from the GW company, why couldn't you use it?

Of course, no one in my LGS adheres to the idiocy that Deffrollas don't work on vehicles, but if they did I would throw this right in their face! In their face!

There have been discrepancies between the English and other language versions of GW codexes for as long as I can remember. With all due respect to Spanish gamers, the English version of the rules is the definitive one, and I'd be wary of adopting an FAQ ruling in another language. I don't think it's the correct interpretation of the rules either (although that's a debate that's been flogged to death), and I'm an Ork player. So let's wait and see whether it appears in the UK version of the FAQ, or disappears.

When the Tau Empire codex was released, the Spanish site was the first site where an FAQ was released.

The FAQ looked unfinished, and a lot of players decided to ignore it, however it was translated verbatim into English and released as the English FAQ a few weeks later.

I kind of concure with the people who say you can use the spanish FAQ. Yes, it's in spanish (and Italian), but it is an official GW FAQ, it's not from telemundo or anything.

It's a rules clarification, nothing so drastic as as a points change. If it goes away in two weeks, it would have been no more drasic than the counter charge and furious charge rule that was gleefully used while it lasted.

Wow! What is this going to do in Adepticon this year? I can see me buying three more upgrade kits if this hits the english site.

yakface wrote:
Hold on there. I think you're going a bit overboard when you imply that someone who didn't want to use a foreign language FAQ is being a bad sport.
Don't get me wrong, I also agree with you that an opponent who is a good sport should indeed consider the foreign language FAQ in lieu of any answer in the english one, but by the same token it wouldn't be very good sportsmanship IMHO for the Ork player to expect that his opponent will abide by the foreign language FAQ.

So a good sport would consider it and then remain a good sport on consideration if they said 'despite the question being resolved with the same answer in two other languages, the fact it's not written in English means I am not prepared to allow it'...?

yakface wrote:
Instead it should be brought up within the strange context it currently exists...the Ork player should present what information he has and mention that, while it is strange that no english version is currently out, that the likelihood is that this represents the eventual update that the english language version will get, and as such, would the opponent mind utilizing the clarification as-is now.
In other words, it should be discussed as with anything else that is a bit murky.
And why do I say it is murky? Well again, it is simply 'odd' to have a foreign language version get the update and not the english language version. 90% of the time this is simply a release snafu and we will have an updated English version within a week or two...

And what if this doesn't happen? I'm quite optimistic it will, but, what if GW don't do another revision to the FAQ for 'Da Englush Speakin orks' until the next ork codex? Do ork players have to wait in some countries and not wait in others? What I learn Spanish and thereby become bilingual? What if a natural speaker of Spanish attends a tourny which allows international players?

yakface wrote:
But let's say in a week or two instead these updates disappear from the foreign language version...what 'message' would that send? That Deff Rollas don't affect vehicles when ramming? I think that's what your opponent might want to claim were this to happen.
So anyway, I just want to point out that these are strange circumstances and I don't think it is crazy for anyone to want to wait a few days for validation anymore then you go up to the counter at a store when you find two of the same item marked with different prices.
Unfortunately in this case, the only way we can get validation is to wait and hope that GW either updates the English FAQ or removes the references from the foreign language ones.

If they disappear I would be surprised, they are an answer to a fairly widely asked question, there is no prior precedence for resolution and now we have one, provided by the owning company, albeit in a language other than English.
My usual opponents have already emailed me that they are happy to accept the ruling (well, unhappy certainly, but understand and concur with it).

I'm hopeful GW will act to bring the English FAQ inline with this asap, I'm just not sure we should all wait around for that to happen if it's going to take a long time.

Will you and the council be changing your FAQs to reflect this Yakface?

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Will you and the council be changing your FAQs to reflect this Yakface?

I can't speak for anyone besides myself.

We are obviously looking at it and deciding what to do right now.

I was always of the opinion that it should work when ramming...again that's originally how we ruled it, its just that we got information from extraneous sources that strongly indicated that GW would rule against it being used with ramming if they ever ruled on it.

Obviously opinions within the studio have changed since then or the person writing this FAQ didn't speak with the person who previously gave that information.


So yeah, IMHO we should change our ruling...and if they clear this up by putting out a new English language version then absolutely positively it would apply at Adepticon.

Hmmm
This spanish/italian ruling makes sense, in game & fluff considerations. But it is really strange that it has not appeared in english FAQ. Usually, foreign languages suffer from some delay since the english .PDF hits the download section.


Remember the Space Wolves FAQ with the mismach about counterattack / furious charge interaction ? It needed more than two weeks to obtain a french version, by this time the mismatch was already history because of the reversal in a second english FAQ.
And two weeks to wait is not even long compared to usual.



My theory is that this weird situation could originate from a simple forgotten paragraph when english PDF was typed/edited. This additional ruling in Italian/Spanish could originate from a complete draft paper of the FAQ, given to translators. Other languages FAQ may lack this ruling because they used the final english PDF as a basis to start the translation (due to time constraints, delay, whatever...). In the french version we don't have this deffrolla ramming rule for instance.


In this case the discrepancy would have been unnoticed until now.
May someone here, having a contact within the studio tell them about the story ? And ask them for a definitive statement ?

These FAQs have been updated to include the answer. The Italian one at the latter part of 09 and now the Spanish one Feb 2010.

The Deffrolla answer has been added at these later dates to the previous FAQ which reads as the English one does (and presumably the French version as well). It's why the Deffrolla question and answer are tacked on at the end.

Monster Rain wrote:

Tri wrote:
You've got to use the FAQ version in language you are playing in.

Says who?

If it came from the GW company, why couldn't you use it?

Of course, no one in my LGS adheres to the idiocy that Deffrollas don't work on vehicles, but if they did I would throw this right in their face! In their face!

I will refuse to use anything that i cannot read. With out running this page through a translation website i would be completely lost, since i only understand English. Again not that i disagree with this being the way it should work but all GW FAQ are house rules and while i fully agree with using them as the definitive answer; to use them at all both players must agree to (and it helps for both players to be able to read it)

MeanGreenStompa wrote:These FAQs have been updated to include the answer. The Italian one at the latter part of 09 and now the Spanish one Feb 2010.

The Deffrolla answer has been added at these later dates to the previous FAQ which reads as the English one does (and presumably the French version as well). It's why the Deffrolla question and answer are tacked on at the end.

Man you're right ! According to document's properties :

old ones without deffrolla tank shock :
english original , june 2008
french old, january 2009
(LOL , 6 months to get a translated version, granted that I don't play orks)

Updated with deffrolla tankshock :
spanish pdf created 22 february 2010.
italian pdf created 23 february 2010.


In fact this is burning news, get ready to download once available !

Just a shame its not english... till its in the english FAQ you still can't use it.

Oh here we go again. Are you shure if it's in English you can use it? I find it pathetic that GW finally makes an FAQ and it still can't be used because it's not in English. That is pretty rasicit of people to say that.

Also I have seen GW FAQs that were in English, and it was still not accepted so don't give me this if it's not in English Bunk crap, it's not accepted.

Davor and MeanGreanStompa have nailed it.
1. It's in two languages (one of which is the native tongue of the BRB's author).
2. It does NOT contradict any existing GW document in any language.
3. Hola! My name is Olympia--soy de Madrid! Deff Rolla es caliente! What you only play English-speakers?

This is hardly game-breaking. If it offers a much needed tweak to the meta-game. If you can't kill an open-topped vehicle with rear armor 10 you've got other problems than S10 hits on your land raider.

Don't worry, gentle dakkites, the Blood Angel codex will be out soon and then you can complain about things that are truly broken.

It's got nothing to do with racism, it's just the fact that precedence shows that when there have been conflicting FAQs on an issue, the English one wins out since GW is a UK-based company and they're the ones who write the rules in the first place.

If the Spanish FAQ is what was sent to them from HQ to translate for the benefit of Spanish-speaking 40k players, then we're likely to get the same FAQ in English soon enough. If it's some guy at GW Spain posting this without any authority, then there's no credibility for using it.

Not yet, at least.

EDIT: For the record, I am in the "Works against vehicles" camp

Don't worry, gentle dakkites, the Blood Angel codex will be out soon and then you can complain about things that are truly broken.

Oh, you.

bhsman wrote:It's got nothing to do with racism, it's just the fact that precedence shows that when there have been conflicting FAQs on an issue,

The point is that the Italian and Spanish FAQ do NOT conflict with anything. There is no FAQ on this other than the Spanish and Italian FAQ. Hola! Me llamo Olympia! Tengo quatro deff rollas!

bhsman wrote:It's got nothing to do with racism, it's just the fact that precedence shows that when there have been conflicting FAQs on an issue, the English one wins out since GW is a UK-based company and they're the ones who write the rules in the first place.

There is no conflict with any GW FAQ. This is the only time GW has addressed this in an official document.

Can someone PLEASE translate the nid faq for me. I know there is not much in it, but please I am so close to selling my new nids because I can't play a single game without a rules argument. I guess I could use more battle wagons and deff rollas with the money from selling them.