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.

your arguement makes no sense,

you are just, falsely, stating again that FAQ's are rules, or changes to the rules

rigeld2 wrote:
Official Interpretations are rules, correct? (incorrect, FAQ's are FAQ's using your logic that the definition of CAT is cat, or Dreadnaught is dreadnaught, GW states the FAQ's are official interpretations of the rules, not changes to them, chagnes are coverd in amendmants and errata)
It has been demonstrated that they change Official Interpretations in FAQs. Correct? (they also change the whole rule book every so often, like changin unit compositions to reflect changes in rules (as in codex BA, ect where all dreads are unit composition "dreadnaught" the fact that GW changes things at times, does not matter, what GW says, is. End of story)

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
To be fair, that's under Errata, not FAQ.

Well that's true, bad example, but:

Q: If a Magna-grapple hits a zooming flyer, does the Grapple special rule work as normal? (p61)
A: No. (Page 5 BA FaQ).

That one is under FaQ and a change to the rules. Therefore FaQ's sometimes do change rules.

That is only the companies official position. It doesn't actualy change the wording of the rule. They are conveying that the magnagraple was not intended to work in this fashion. But yes, to somewhat paraphrasse your point, FAQ's do change how the game is played. Because players accept FAQ answers as cannon. They are essentialy GW house rules.

That being said. If a FAQ is considered cannon. It would also be cannon that Ironclad Dreads are Dreadnoughts.

Right, That is only the companies official position, and a change to how the rules are written.

easysauce wrote:
you are just, falsely, stating again that FAQ's are rules, or changes to the rules

Did you miss my post:

Q: If a Magna-grapple hits a zooming flyer, does the Grapple special rule work as normal? (p61)
A: No. (Page 5 BA FaQ).

That one is under FaQ and a change to the rules. Therefore FaQ's sometimes do change rules.

In 5th they changed how a TWC modifies toughness so that a S8 weapon couldn't ID a TW lord.
That was a complete break with modifiers in 5th and changed a rule.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Right, That is only the companies official position, and a change to how the rules are written.

No, it doesn't change how a rule is written. Only Errata and amendments change how a rule is written. The FAQ is an official position on how they should be considered. The wording of rules remain the same.

You don't have to accept FAQ's as rules. The fact that most people do, does not require that you have to. Errata and Amendments are official changes.

I was a little strcuk by this. The poll reads, atm, 93-7. That to me, means there is no argument, it is about as unanimous as an opinion ever gets on the internet.

Sooooooo.......why 9 pages?

 liturgies of blood wrote:
In 5th they changed how a TWC modifies toughness so that a S8 weapon couldn't ID a TW lord.

Was that an Errata, Amendment or a FAQ? The placement of the statement makes all the difference.

 Idolator wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
In 5th they changed how a TWC modifies toughness so that a S8 weapon couldn't ID a TW lord.

Was that an Errata, Amendment or a FAQ? The placement of the statement makes all the difference.

This was a question. It fundamentally changed how a TW Lord's stats were written. It was 5 instead of 4(5) or whatever, that was a change to the rules.
Sometimes a question changes the rules. Like the scout move and smoke launchers questions in 5th, other times it just clarifies how the rules should have been read. It is not always clear but there are some times when it is.

DR, except the rule before did not say they were affected, it was simply INTERPRETED as they did (by some anyways, I never played that the grapple affected flyers)

it did not change any rule, it simply clarified an existing one

a question was asked, an answer given, it did not change any rule,

even though it may have changed how you play the game, since now you have an official intepretation of that rule,
it did not change how I played it, I was able to figure that out without a FAQ, just as I was able to figure out force weapons re FNP without a FAQ

this is in a thread where its being argued that the definition of dreadnaught is dreadnaguht,

at the same time it is being argued that GW's definition of what an FAQ is, is wrong,

that the definition is FAQ is not FAQ, it is rules sometimes, FAQ others...


which is contrary to the line of thinking "the definition of a dreadnaught is dreadnaught"

cant have it both ways,

GW says what an FAQ is very clearly, they say it does not change the rules, that means it doesnt. (even if common sense says that since the FAQ may change how YOU play the game, the rules in your intepretation have "changed" from the wrong interpretation to the (current) official interpretation.)

cant say to throw out common sense for one half of the arguement, then estol having to use it for the other half...

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
In 5th they changed how a TWC modifies toughness so that a S8 weapon couldn't ID a TW lord.

Was that an Errata, Amendment or a FAQ? The placement of the statement makes all the difference.

This was a question. It fundamentally changed how a TW Lord's stats were written. It was 5 instead of 4(5) or whatever, that was a change to the rules.
Sometimes a question changes the rules. Like the scout move and smoke launchers questions in 5th, other times it just clarifies how the rules should have been read. It is not always clear but there are some times when it is.

Where was the change made? in the Rulebook, an errata, an amendment, or a FAQ?

We were discussing the FAQ portion only. FAQ's are not changes in wording of rules, ever.

If you accept them as cannon, then fine. You don't have to. I do.

Besides all that, if you do accept them as rules changes. Then an Ironclad Dreadnought is indeed a Dreadnought.

 Idolator wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
In 5th they changed how a TWC modifies toughness so that a S8 weapon couldn't ID a TW lord.

Was that an Errata, Amendment or a FAQ? The placement of the statement makes all the difference.

This was a question. It fundamentally changed how a TW Lord's stats were written. It was 5 instead of 4(5) or whatever, that was a change to the rules.
Sometimes a question changes the rules. Like the scout move and smoke launchers questions in 5th, other times it just clarifies how the rules should have been read. It is not always clear but there are some times when it is.

Where was the change made? in the Rulebook, an errata, an amendment, or a FAQ?

We were discussing the FAQ portion only. FAQ's are not changes in wording of rules, ever.

If you accept them as cannon, then fine. You don't have to. I do.

Besides all that, if you do accept them as rules changes. Then an Ironclad Dreadnought is indeed a Dreadnought.

Faq's changed the wording and working of rules. FAQ's have nothing to do with this argument. I agree that dreadnought in SR rules is any dread but you're pulling in a poor argument to justify that stance.

An Faq changed how shooting works in 6th. When you change how the rules work you change rules.
When you create an exception to the standard process for modifications that wasn't said in the codex you change rules.

The idea that FAQ's NEVER change rules is bunk.

easysauce wrote:
DR, except the rule before did not say they were affected, it was simply INTERPRETED as they did (by some anyways, I never played that the grapple affected flyers)

it did not change any rule, it simply clarified an existing one

a question was asked, an answer given, it did not change any rule,

even though it may have changed how you play the game, since now you have an official intepretation of that rule,
it did not change how I played it, I was able to figure that out without a FAQ, just as I was able to figure out force weapons re FNP without a FAQ

Because it did change the rule by not allowing the Magna-grapple to move a flyer.

We had permission to snap shot the Magna-grapple, then the magna grapple had its effects.

Pre-FaQ there were no rules to rescind the permission.

The FaQ changed the rule by stating that it can not move a flyer, even though there are no rules to the contrary.

 Idolator wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Right, That is only the companies official position, and a change to how the rules are written.

No, it doesn't change how a rule is written. Only Errata and amendments change how a rule is written. The FAQ is an official position on how they should be considered. The wording of rules remain the same.

You don't have to accept FAQ's as rules. The fact that most people do, does not require that you have to. Errata and Amendments are official changes.

The tenets of the forum say:

2. 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.

The FaQ's are changes to the rules.

Dakka dakka forum rules do not overide what GW says

by that interpretation, we ignore errata and amendmants since those are not FAq's or BRB

GW says FAQ's are not rules changes, end of story,

you say they are, and you are welcome to play that way,

however, GW officially has stated FAQ's are not rules, errata and amendments are,

the dakka forum rules do not override what GW says

easysauce wrote:
Dakka dakka forum rules do not overide what GW says

by that interpretation, we ignore errata and amendmants since those are not FAq's or BRB

The forum tenets are talking about the "Warhammer 40k FAQ, Errata and Amendments" page listed here:

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=1000018&pIndex=1&aId=3400019&start=2

 DeathReaper wrote:

The FaQ's are changes to the rules.

thats now what GW says

gw " FAQs, or Frequently Asked Questions are grey areas, points of confusion or places where rules can and have been interpreted in conflicting ways. For each FAQ we provide the answer as determined by the Games Development team; while these are not hard and fast rules text in the same way as Errata, they should be considered the 'official' interpretation."

and while common sense might say you are right DR, since you are playing the game differently because of some FAQ's (none of the latest FAQ's have changed how I play the game)

GW says you are wrong, and in 40k land GW> common sense

GW's statement that FAQ are NOT rules like errata/amendmants overides anything said about GW rules by any other source, be it me, you, or dakka dakka forum guidlines

GW says "these are not hard and fast rules text in the same way as Errata" but they still change rules.

The " the 'official' interpretation." can change rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:
GW says "these are not hard and fast rules text in the same way as Errata" but they still change rules.

The " the 'official' interpretation." can change rules.

again, so YOU say,

GW says otherwise

because I said so is not proof

because GW said so is

easysauce wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
GW says "these are not hard and fast rules text in the same way as Errata" but they still change rules.

The " the 'official' interpretation." can change rules.

again, so YOU say,

GW says otherwise

because I said so is not proof

because GW said so is

He doesn't say so GW say so.

 DeathReaper wrote:
GW says "these are not hard and fast rules text in the same way as Errata" but they still change rules.

The " the 'official' interpretation." can change rules.

It doesn't change the rules. It's their official position on the RAW.

The problem that most people have is that they lump all of the "Errata, Amendments, and FAQs" under the simplified heading of FAQ. Even this website has done it!

It's not the case. It changes how people play, but doesn't change the rules as written.

But, once again, If they are to be accepted as cannon. Then the FAQ answer for the Tyranid codex would apply universally to the other codexes as well. Yay! My lootas are indeed Orks and Ironclad Dreadnoughts are Drednoughts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
[He doesn't say so GW say so.

This is what GW says about the FAQ.

while these are not hard and fast rules text in the same way as Errata, they should be considered the 'official' interpretation

They aren't rules.

GW says the above as I and idolater have quoted,

no quote from GW has been presented saying that FAQ's are rules,

so there isnt a leg to stand on when GW specifically exludes FAQ's from being rules as errata/amendmants are,

there is a difference between errata, amendmants and FAQ's despite them all being on one PDF

"they should be considered the 'official' interpretation"

The 'official' interpretation of what?

The rules?

Then they are the rules.

yes, they are the INTERPRETATION of the rules, that is what GW says, that is not the same as being/changing the rules

YOU are the one saying it changes the rules, not GW

being the interpretation of the rules is not the same as being the rules, or changing the rules, or they would not make such a distinction between errata, amendmants and FAQ

they are not changing the rules,

they specifically state "these are not hard and fast rules text in the same way as Errata"

and you take that to mean "these are hard and fast rules just like in errata"

that is not correct

 DeathReaper wrote:
"they should be considered the 'official' interpretation"

The 'official' interpretation of what?

The rules?

Then they are the rules.

If that is how you see it, then would you agree that an Ironclad Dreadnought is a Dreadnought?

GW is actually kinda famous making "FAQ" questions that really are errata, as if they didn't want to admit they messed up the rules that badly.

In any case, if there was a unit called "crazy ghost dreadnought" guess what, it's a dreadnought. Just like the old Greater demon from CSM was demon, even though no one bothered ot give it a "demon" rule type. (and mandrakes for good measure)

grow up.

easysauce wrote:
yes, they are the INTERPRETATION of the rules, that is what GW says, that is not the same as being/changing the rules

I wound point you to the dictionary definition of interpretation, but that is against the forum rules.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:
GW is actually kinda famous making "FAQ" questions that really are errata, as if they didn't want to admit they messed up the rules that badly.

In any case, if there was a unit called "crazy ghost dreadnought" guess what, it's a dreadnought. Just like the old Greater demon from CSM was demon, even though no one bothered ot give it a "demon" rule type. (and mandrakes for good measure)

grow up.

That's been my standing the whole time. That an Ironclad Dread is in fact a Dreadnought. I've been trying to figure out what would cause someone to consider them as anything else!

easysauce wrote:
yes, they are the INTERPRETATION of the rules, that is what GW says, that is not the same as being/changing the rules

YOU are the one saying it changes the rules, not GW

being the interpretation of the rules is not the same as being the rules, or changing the rules, or they would not make such a distinction between errata, amendmants and FAQ

they are not changing the rules,

they specifically state "these are not hard and fast rules text in the same way as Errata"

and you take that to mean "these are hard and fast rules just like in errata"

that is not correct

Interpretation of the law changes it and changes the application of it.
How is that any different from rules?

 Idolator wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:
GW is actually kinda famous making "FAQ" questions that really are errata, as if they didn't want to admit they messed up the rules that badly.

In any case, if there was a unit called "crazy ghost dreadnought" guess what, it's a dreadnought. Just like the old Greater demon from CSM was demon, even though no one bothered ot give it a "demon" rule type. (and mandrakes for good measure)

grow up.

That's been my standing the whole time. That an Ironclad Dread is in fact a Dreadnought. I've been trying to figure out what would cause someone to consider them as anything else!

No one is claiming that they are not Dreadnoughts from a fluff standpoint. I'm fairly certain that most of the people who voted No voted No because that is what the RAW is. I voted No, because RAW they cannot. HIWPI is completely different.

Since FAQs do not change the rules, does that mean my Farseers can cast Guide/Fortune/Doom while embarked? Furthermore, since an Ironclad Dreadnought is a Dreadnought (from a fluff standpoint at least) then from a fluff standpoint, Dark Eldar are Eldar and can therefore have Guide and Fortune casted upon them.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

Interpretation of the law changes it and changes the application of it.
How is that any different from rules?

Not necessarily. It is easy to see how an answer changes a rule when you thought that the rule said something that you misinterpreted. People don't like to read a rule, interpret it, and then be told that they're not interpreting it correctly. Many times, they'll reach for the "well that's a rules change" excuse, when it may simply be a different way to interpret the rule. Instead of looking inward at something they could have read differently (possibly changing their entire stance on how to read the rules as a whole), they quickly look outward at other forces. That says, "I am not wrong. How could I be wrong? It is the rules that are wrong, and the FAQ is changing them!"

Or, it simply means that you read the rules incorrectly, the FAQ is clarifying the intent for you and instead of being a rule change, the actual rule was there all along, waiting to be interpreted correctly.

So, don't be so quick to say that FAQs always change rules. Interpretation of the law doesn't change the law. It takes judges (GW), juries and trials to interpret the law and then apply the law's meaning. It doesn't actually change the law at all. The law can be changed, but not by simple interpretation. It takes a bill or an amendment (Errata) to actually change a law.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:
GW is actually kinda famous making "FAQ" questions that really are errata, as if they didn't want to admit they messed up the rules that badly.

In any case, if there was a unit called "crazy ghost dreadnought" guess what, it's a dreadnought. Just like the old Greater demon from CSM was demon, even though no one bothered ot give it a "demon" rule type. (and mandrakes for good measure)

grow up.

That's been my standing the whole time. That an Ironclad Dread is in fact a Dreadnought. I've been trying to figure out what would cause someone to consider them as anything else!

No one is claiming that they are not Dreadnoughts from a fluff standpoint. I'm fairly certain that most of the people who voted No voted No because that is what the RAW is. I voted No, because RAW they cannot. HIWPI is completely different.

Since FAQs do not change the rules, does that mean my Farseers can cast Guide/Fortune/Doom while embarked? Furthermore, since an Ironclad Dreadnought is a Dreadnought (from a fluff standpoint at least) then from a fluff standpoint, Dark Eldar are Eldar and can therefore have Guide and Fortune casted upon them.

Being a dreadnought "from a fluff" standpoint would be if it said it was a dreadnought somewhere in the flavor text. Like a Hell brute for instance.

If it has "dreadnought" in damn name of the unit, that's not "in the fluff", that makes it a freaking dreadnought.

Furthermore, Demons are demons. Mandrakes, whose great great grandmaw thought a demon was cute once, are demons. Pulse rifles are plasma weapons as per the PLasma Siphon FAQ. So truly, fluff is rules for GW.

You have literally no leg to stand on here.