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.

Ok, fair point Yarium. He may not have played with Tyranid when Spores were around.

 Kriswall wrote:

 rawne2510 wrote:
You said that if the rule was clear then a person wouldn´t look in an FAQ for any changes. The same could be said of checking the errata


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So at this point it wouldn´t matter if the FAQ´d it or errata´d it. The person still wouldn´t check

I don't think the same could be said for Erratas. Erratas change rules, so everyone should read every Errata. FAQs clear up ambiguous situations. If the rules seem straightforward, most people don't bother looking for an FAQ.

They are in the same document. If you are checking one then you are checking both.

 rawne2510 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 rawne2510 wrote:
You said that if the rule was clear then a person wouldn´t look in an FAQ for any changes. The same could be said of checking the errata


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So at this point it wouldn´t matter if the FAQ´d it or errata´d it. The person still wouldn´t check

I don't think the same could be said for Erratas. Erratas change rules, so everyone should read every Errata. FAQs clear up ambiguous situations. If the rules seem straightforward, most people don't bother looking for an FAQ.

They are in the same document. If you are checking one then you are checking both.

Not necessarily true.

Ok so you read the first 4 paragraphs on erratas and never bother reading the rest of the document!!!

If that is the case no wonder you have issues.

Fragile wrote:Ok, fair point Yarium. He may not have played with Tyranid when Spores were around.

"Drop pod" without a qualifier (such as "their" or "Tyranid") indicates the actual unit of Drop Pod used by certain Armies of the Imperium. You also got the name wrong, so don't go throwing stones on that account.

rawne2510 wrote:Ok so you read the first 4 paragraphs on erratas and never bother reading the rest of the document!!!

If that is the case no wonder you have issues.

Many people just quick read the FAQs unless they are looking for something specific. Unless they heard it from someone else or they are deliberately trying to stop space marines from Embarking on to Drop Pods (from another codex), most wouldn't think to look for things like Battle Brothers and Transports.

So, too, which I have stated before, if you consider the standards established in the BRB and every single codex and supplement that these detachment lists are providing lists of units, why would you think to ever look for a question on if it is asking for just the Captain model?

 rawne2510 wrote:
Ok so you read the first 4 paragraphs on erratas and never bother reading the rest of the document!!!

If that is the case no wonder you have issues.

I don't have issues. I typically read the entire document. Not everyone does. Not everyone should have to. If a rule is completely unambiguous, a reasonable person would check the Erratas to make sure nothing has changed. A reasonable person would not necessarily think to check the FAQs as FAQs are not usually intended to change unambiguous rules. GW should stick to keeping rules changes in the Errata section.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:
So, too, which I have stated before, if you consider the standards established in the BRB and every single codex and supplement that these detachment lists are providing lists of units, why would you think to ever look for a question on if it is asking for just the Captain model?

Exactly my point. An average, reasonable player would check the Errata section, but might not think to check the FAQ section for rules changes. This particular FAQ should really have been presented as an Errata to the Formation description page.

 Kriswall wrote:
Exactly my point. An average, reasonable player would check the Errata section, but might not think to check the FAQ section for rules changes. This particular FAQ should really have been presented as an Errata to the Formation description page.

Or better yet, place Errata the Restrictions of the Formations in question. That way, they don't mess with the standards they have established and keep things to the specific detachment in question.

If the units are fundamentally different and occupy different org slots they should have a separate entry in the codex.

In my view this is a rule change not a clarification.

An average reasonable person having read GW''s rules and played a few games would realise that GW suck at writing and so would read everything.

I fail to see why there is an argument on this thread

Faq-this is how GW want you to play it - OK it contradicts itself OK it makes rulings that probably apply to blood angels in the sm faq (if you want to complain about anything needing to check another codexs faq-I'm looking at you drop pod doors) OK a blind monkey at a typewriter could do a better job of defining things but it is how they want you to play it it is official if your complaining about rulings you've read it

Errata yes many faq rulings could be deemed erratta because there is a fine line between GW changing the rules and gw's writing being so bad that noone playing the game knew what they meant so we all just did what they wrote instead of intended to write

Finnally there are many people who admittedly need to learn to read and complain about faq making changes when it didn't looking at you multi grenaders. However there were plenty of rulings that do deviate from what was written to what was intended this doesn't mean people were wrong on either side of an argument the argument was often there because there was a lack of clarity. Well now there is that's a good thing and gw have made a choice

However whether you label it errata or faq it is an official ruling if your reading this post you know that

Finnally a house rule is a rule you create at home it is never official and may not be followed in different areas. Faq and errata are intended to be they are different

U02dah4 wrote:
Finnally a house rule is a rule you create at home it is never official and may not be followed in different areas. Faq and errata are intended to be they are different

So tournament rules are not official. Got it. I'm sure that will go over well at the next tournament you play.

They're not official, just mandatory
Not an authority or public body.
( GW are the authority, and haven't yet delegated that authority)

nosferatu1001 wrote:
They're not official, just mandatory
Not an authority or public body.
( GW are the authority, and haven't yet delegated that authority)

Hmm... Yeah, you try that and see how long you last at a tournament.

Authority is based on whose house you are playing in. NFL rules are official in NFL games, but not in NCAA games or in high school games, much less the games in the park.

GW has delegated tournament authority by not stating any authority over tournaments nor enforcing authority over tournaments. GW won't come in and confiscate your toy soldiers for playing them "wrong".

Tournament organizers hold authority over their tournaments. That makes their House Rules official. If they weren't, they would not be mandatory as there would be nothing to enforce their use.

Tournaments make house rules that are valid for that tournament. If you enter the tournament you agree to abide by those house rules. These are not official rules and the clue is you go to a tournament elsewhere and you get shock different rules.

 Charistoph wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
They're not official, just mandatory
Not an authority or public body.
( GW are the authority, and haven't yet delegated that authority)

Hmm... Yeah, you try that and see how long you last at a tournament.

Authority is based on whose house you are playing in. NFL rules are official in NFL games, but not in NCAA games or in high school games, much less the games in the park.

GW has delegated tournament authority by not stating any authority over tournaments nor enforcing authority over tournaments. GW won't come in and confiscate your toy soldiers for playing them "wrong".

Tournament organizers hold authority over their tournaments. That makes their House Rules official. If they weren't, they would not be mandatory as there would be nothing to enforce their use.

Next time you come to one of my tournament with house rules from one of your tournaments and see how long you last there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Uo2dah4 is saying that the house rules for a tournament are in no way official in anything but that tournament. I am pretty sure there are events that state they will use current ITC FAQs with the following changes.

If someone wants to allow invisibility to work as per the BRB then they can state within an ITC tournament FAQ they will ignore the changes to invis. They can choose to do that as it is their tournament.

Absolutely ITC and ETC are sets of house rules that are commonly used. If I go to an ITC tournament I agree to play by those rules. However if the tournamental organiser wishes to modify them by say banning superheavys they can. Also the next I go to might not be ITC.

U02dah4 wrote:Tournaments make house rules that are valid for that tournament. If you enter the tournament you agree to abide by those house rules. These are not official rules and the clue is you go to a tournament elsewhere and you get shock different rules.

Those rules are official for that tournament, yes or no?

If you consider those rules not official, what happens?

Definition of official:
1 Relating to an authority or public body and its activities and responsibilities.
1.1 Having the approval or authorization of an authority or public body.
1.2 Employed by an authority or public body in a position of authority.

Do Tournament Organizers have authority within their tournament, yes or no?

rawne2510 wrote:Next time you come to one of my tournament with house rules from one of your tournaments and see how long you last there.

Exactly my point. Thank you for demonstrating it.

rawne2510 wrote:Uo2dah4 is saying that the house rules for a tournament are in no way official in anything but that tournament. I am pretty sure there are events that state they will use current ITC FAQs with the following changes.

If someone wants to allow invisibility to work as per the BRB then they can state within an ITC tournament FAQ they will ignore the changes to invis. They can choose to do that as it is their tournament.

Very true, and to my point. Game organizers have final authority on what is applied to their games. For those games, they are official. It may not extend beyond that game, but that doesn't mean they lose any weight during the game by doing so.

U02dah4 wrote:Absolutely ITC and ETC are sets of house rules that are commonly used. If I go to an ITC tournament I agree to play by those rules. However if the tournamental organiser wishes to modify them by say banning superheavys they can. Also the next I go to might not be ITC.

Exactly. For those tournaments, those House Rules are official.

FIFA, NFL, MLB, and NBA all have their official rules, and if someone comes from the NCAA and tries to play in a FIFA/NFL/MLB/NBA game using NCAA rules, they will either run in to a foul or be self-limiting.

So, too, in an NCAA game NCAA rules are official, and someone coming in and trying to run with FIFA/NFL/MLB/NBA rules will almost definitely run in to fouls to the point of being ejected.

"Official" depends on the circumstances you are operating under. If you are operating under a GW event, you play by GW's full ruleset and their FAQs. If you are operating under an ITC event, then you are playing under their rules and FAQ, because you are operating under their authority.

 Charistoph wrote:

"Official" depends on the circumstances you are operating under. If you are operating under a GW event, you play by GW's full ruleset and their FAQs. If you are operating under an ITC event, then you are playing under their rules and FAQ, because you are operating under their authority.

Official rules means the rules officially endorsed by the producer of the game. Sure you can take the word and interpret it out of context, but the result is pretty stupid:

When I play at home my house rules aren't house rules but official rules since I'm operating under my own authority.

The very thing that the words "House Rule" means is that "these rules are specific to this house". So they're the rules that the owner of the house laid down. The ITC rules are a prime example of that. Others might choose to adapt the same house rules for their house - or not.

nekooni wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

"Official" depends on the circumstances you are operating under. If you are operating under a GW event, you play by GW's full ruleset and their FAQs. If you are operating under an ITC event, then you are playing under their rules and FAQ, because you are operating under their authority.

Official rules means the rules officially endorsed by the producer of the game. Sure you can take the word and interpret it out of context, but the result is pretty stupid:

When I play at home my house rules aren't house rules but official rules since I'm operating under my own authority.

The very thing that the words "House Rule" means is that "these rules are specific to this house". So they're the rules that the owner of the house laid down. The ITC rules are a prime example of that. Others might choose to adapt the same house rules for their house - or not.

Pretty much this.

nekooni wrote:
Official rules means the rules officially endorsed by the producer of the game. Sure you can take the word and interpret it out of context, but the result is pretty stupid:

Nothing was taken out of context. The organizers of the game get to determine what is official for that game. To say that a tournament's rules are not official is to not acknowledge the tournament's authority.

nekooni wrote:
The very thing that the words "House Rule" means is that "these rules are specific to this house". So they're the rules that the owner of the house laid down. The ITC rules are a prime example of that. Others might choose to adapt the same house rules for their house - or not.

Which is something I stated. It doesn't make them any less official. The owner of the house is the authority, therefore that makes it official. This isn't a huge leap in logic, just acknowledging where the authority lies.

 Charistoph wrote:

nekooni wrote:
Official rules means the rules officially endorsed by the producer of the game. Sure you can take the word and interpret it out of context, but the result is pretty stupid:

Nothing was taken out of context. The organizers of the game get to determine what is official for that game. To say that a tournament's rules are not official is to not acknowledge the tournament's authority.

nekooni wrote:
The very thing that the words "House Rule" means is that "these rules are specific to this house". So they're the rules that the owner of the house laid down. The ITC rules are a prime example of that. Others might choose to adapt the same house rules for their house - or not.

Which is something I stated. It doesn't make them any less official. The owner of the house is the authority, therefore that makes it official. This isn't a huge leap in logic, just acknowledging where the authority lies.

Most people consider GW to be the only real authority in terms of whether or not a rule is official. EVERYONE else, from little Jimmy who plays with his friend to groups like ITC are creating house rules that are unofficial, but might be required if you want to play in their house (or store or event hall or whatever).

Official is not the same as unofficial, but mandatory if you want to play at a specific location/event or with a specific person. I think you're getting a lot of push back because house rules are almost universally considered to by unofficial, regardless of context.

 Kriswall wrote:
Most people consider GW to be the only real authority in terms of whether or not a rule is official. EVERYONE else, from little Jimmy who plays with his friend to groups like ITC are creating house rules that are unofficial, but might be required if you want to play in their house (or store or event hall or whatever).

Which makes it official in their house. They have the authority in their house. By not recognizing it as official there, you are saying they have no authority to be making those rules. Go ahead and tell a TO that their rules do not matter and see how long you will be playing in "their house".

 Kriswall wrote:
Official is not the same as unofficial, but mandatory if you want to play at a specific location/event or with a specific person. I think you're getting a lot of push back because house rules are almost universally considered to by unofficial, regardless of context.

That's their choice to consider things out of context. It happens all the time. GW literally called FAQs as their House Rules for years. Did this reduce their officiality by doing so? If so, why?

Recognizing something as official is about recognizing authority. House Rules are not about going against another authority, but recognizing the authority of the local situation.

You changed your use of a term, and it is not recognized globally, and you are pushing back against people who do not recognize your authority to make the change in slang nor change the statements from the rules-producing company.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Most people consider GW to be the only real authority in terms of whether or not a rule is official. EVERYONE else, from little Jimmy who plays with his friend to groups like ITC are creating house rules that are unofficial, but might be required if you want to play in their house (or store or event hall or whatever).

Which makes it official in their house. They have the authority in their house. By not recognizing it as official there, you are saying they have no authority to be making those rules. Go ahead and tell a TO that their rules do not matter and see how long you will be playing in "their house".

So there's literally no reason to have the phrases "official rules" and "house rules", since house rules are always official in the house that issued them.

As I said - sure you can take the word "official"out of context and interpret it on their own, just like you could take the word catfish and only look at the parts of it. It clearly has to be a feline type of fish then, doesn't it? All cowboys must be bovine variants of young male humans?

I mean, we could just define a virtual house of "this is the game of 40k", acknowledge that the owner and sole authority of that "house" is GW and treat all the rules they provided us as official and all the other rules that were provided by other sources as house rules, but then we'd end up with functionally the same interpretation as everyone else, but meh. That's boring.

nekooni wrote:
So there's literally no reason to have the phrases "official rules" and "house rules", since house rules are always official in the house that issued them.

As I said - sure you can take the word "official"out of context and interpret it on their own, just like you could take the word catfish and only look at the parts of it. It clearly has to be a feline type of fish then, doesn't it? All cowboys must be bovine variants of young male humans?

I mean, we could just define a virtual house of "this is the game of 40k", acknowledge that the owner and sole authority of that "house" is GW and treat all the rules they provided us as official and all the other rules that were provided by other sources as house rules, but then we'd end up with functionally the same interpretation as everyone else, but meh. That's boring.

That's your choice. But you point out the reason I have been sticking to "base rules", "codex rules", "FAQ", and such, lately. FAQs are not rules until you choose to give them the weight of rules. GW does not acknowledge them as rules, nor have they changed the written word of the rules. Tournament rules do not mean anything if you are not playing in a tournament. But as soon as you start playing in that tournament, you are recognizing their authority, and so they become official.

If you think they change the written word of the rules, which line does it state it replaces by the Battle Brothers not being able to Embark Transports?

Charistoph is right sort of.

In the FAQ in the frequently asked quetions section (p12 main rule book) it says that battle brothers cannot start in each others transports.

I can't find the bit where they say that FAQ is more their house rules and do not have the same status as books,amendements, and errata's I'm certain I read it somewhere recently. So untill I do, they have?

That being said. It is a GW publication and this stops a lot of shennanigans so I am going to use it whenever possible. even if it is terrible for howling banshees.

My conclusion was from GW being morons. Not desire. The entire studio might have three brain cells between them.

"Fact: GW has differentiated the two terms, and not associated them as being the same. "

GW can't put two sentences together without needing clarification and has the math skills of a planarian. I don't give a feth what they differentiate and what they associate. They are idiots, and I don't trust them to add 2+2, much less successfully differentiate these two terms. You call it fact, but since GW is involved, I don't trust it or believe it. My only wish in this matter is that I could make someone at GW feel bad.

Earth127 wrote:
Charistoph is right sort of.

In the FAQ in the frequently asked quetions section (p12 main rule book) it says that battle brothers cannot start in each others transports.

I can't find the bit where they say that FAQ is more their house rules and do not have the same status as books,amendements, and errata's I'm certain I read it somewhere recently. So untill I do, they have?

That being said. It is a GW publication and this stops a lot of shennanigans so I am going to use it whenever possible. even if it is terrible for howling banshees.

But can you find where they do say the the FAQ is their house rules? All they say in the document itself is "The Frequently Asked Questions (or 'FAQ') section answers commonly aksed questions about the rules." That doesn't say that they're GW's house rules, or that they treated as being lesser than either of the other two sections in the rules update.

Martel732 wrote:
My conclusion was from GW being morons. Not desire. The entire studio might have three brain cells between them.

"Fact: GW has differentiated the two terms, and not associated them as being the same. "

GW can't put two sentences together without needing clarification and has the math skills of a planarian. I don't give a feth what they differentiate and what they associate. They are idiots, and I don't trust them to add 2+2, much less successfully differentiate these two terms. You call it fact, but since GW is involved, I don't trust it or believe it. My only wish in this matter is that I could make someone at GW feel bad.

Then you are conflating 'fact' and 'truth'. A fact exists on its own outside of your perception, and is consistent. A truth exists based on your perceptions. For example, it would be a fact that someone plays a rule wrong. The truth of if he is a cheater or forgetful will be dependent on perception. To put it another way, but Harrison Ford playing Henry 'Indiana' Jones, Jr, "Archaeology is the search for fact... not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall."

It is a fact that GW has differentiated the terms. The truth is that they suck at rule writing. This doesn't change what GW has done, but how we perceive the effectiveness at what GW has done. This then puts everything you said in the realm of RAI/HYWPI, and not RAW. So long as you recognize the difference, I have little to say against it, other than try to argue some sense from my perception of truth.

Here's a follow up question, if you cannot trust their noted difference between FAQ and Errata, why do you trust anything in the FAQ? Or the Eratta, for that matter?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:
But can you find where they do say the the FAQ is their house rules? All they say in the document itself is "The Frequently Asked Questions (or 'FAQ') section answers commonly aksed questions about the rules." That doesn't say that they're GW's house rules, or that they treated as being lesser than either of the other two sections in the rules update.

I've already explained why from my perspective. Can you find where they say FAQs are Errata?

" why do you trust anything in the FAQ? Or the Eratta, for that matter?"

I don't. But other people listen to them, and not to me.

 Charistoph wrote:
[quote=Martel732 720249 9262914 null
It is a fact that GW has differentiated the terms. The truth is that they suck at rule writing. This doesn't change what GW has done, but how we perceive the effectiveness at what GW has done. This then puts everything you said in the realm of RAI/HYWPI, and not RAW. So long as you recognize the difference, I have little to say against it, other than try to argue some sense from my perception of truth.

Here's a follow up question, if you cannot trust their noted difference between FAQ and Errata, why do you trust anything in the FAQ? Or the Eratta, for that matter?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:
But can you find where they do say the the FAQ is their house rules? All they say in the document itself is "The Frequently Asked Questions (or 'FAQ') section answers commonly aksed questions about the rules." That doesn't say that they're GW's house rules, or that they treated as being lesser than either of the other two sections in the rules update.

I've already explained why from my perspective. Can you find where they say FAQs are Errata?

Why would I expect to? They state errata as correcting mistakes in the book, while they say the FAQ part answers commonly answers questions about the rules. The implication is that the rules are the same for what they're dealing with in the FAQ, it's just that if you don't believe it you just haven't been reading the rules right.

Charistoph - hence mandatory, not official
The authority when it comes to 40k is GW. That is not arguable. They may have been negligent and not created a scheme of delegation, but that does not imply a delegation to $TO exists,

However it is a condition of entry and play that you follow their mandatory rules, over an above those described in the rulebook - including a set points limit not agreed between the two players.

Hence mandatory and not official. A tournaments rules are thief mandatory, UNofficial rules.