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.

Jangustus wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
It is a clarification not a rules change simply because it is an FAQ not an errata. FAQs can not change the rules they simply clarify them.

This is manifestly untrue. Note the Tyranid FAQ question with regards to Shadow in the Warp affecting units in transports. This was answered both yes and no in subsequent FAQ updates. One of them must have been a rules change. So FAQ's do occasionally change the rules.

This untruth has been pointed out to fling on a number of occasions, however they refuse to stop pretending it is true.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Jangustus wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
It is a clarification not a rules change simply because it is an FAQ not an errata. FAQs can not change the rules they simply clarify them.

This is manifestly untrue. Note the Tyranid FAQ question with regards to Shadow in the Warp affecting units in transports. This was answered both yes and no in subsequent FAQ updates. One of them must have been a rules change. So FAQ's do occasionally change the rules.

This untruth has been pointed out to fling on a number of occasions, however they refuse to stop pretending it is true.

So you claim you believe the rules are RaW yet that FaQs can change the rules despite that the RAW definition of an FAQ makes this impossible. Your laughable stance that GW didn't design the rules is backed up by your glaring hypocrisy on an issue like this...

Yet as has been pointed out FAQs can't by definition change the rules. That is fact.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yet as has been pointed out FAQs can't by definition change the rules. That is fact.

Yet they do.
Look at the Heldrake FAQ.
That's changing and inventing rules right there. It's not a clarification.

If I remember right, the argument for them not being rule changes stems from the fact the Frequently Asked Questions inform us that Errata is the correct way to correct mistakes in the rules. I sort of remember the side arguing that Frequently Asked Questions do not change rules referencing a sentence that out-right stated that Frequently Asked Question answers would not be rule changes. I might be blind, or just over-worked right now, but I do not see that in the latest versions uploaded to Game Workshop's website so maybe they even realized this sentence was a out right lie and cropped it. Or they might of been trying one of these logical arguments that Errata, stated as a way to correct errors in the rules, is therefore the only way to do so. A simple conclusion of 'because the other two do not state they change rules, they therefore do not change rules' that clearly goes against the evidence put forth.

Regardless of what they stated in the opening section though: The Frequently Asked Question answers have changed rules.

 grendel083 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yet as has been pointed out FAQs can't by definition change the rules. That is fact.

Yet they do.
Look at the Heldrake FAQ.
That's changing and inventing rules right there. It's not a clarification.

And let's not forget the big one of shooting wounds only allowed to be allocated to models within range of at least one firing weapon.

So yeah it happens, a lot.

 grendel083 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yet as has been pointed out FAQs can't by definition change the rules. That is fact.

Yet they do.
Look at the Heldrake FAQ.
That's changing and inventing rules right there. It's not a clarification.

It is a clarification because most people reading the rules were unable to determine how it was mounted and how to play it. They clarified that for us. The intention was for the Helldrake to have a 360° fire arc all along. Just because most people didn't realise that didn't make it a rules change. They obviously also thought it was clear that the turning circle of the neck was exactly the same as the base it is on.

FAQ can't change the rules because an FAQ is a frequently asked question that they answer. No rules can possibly be changed as they do not change the rule books. Errata do that.

Fling: Are Battlements Buildings?

If not, why does the rule book inform us in the very first section that Battlements are part of Multiple-Structured Buildings?
If so, why does the Frequently Asked Question tell us outright that they are not?

I would guess probably not I see the rules as very unclear on that subject due to some of the FAQs. Why?

Quite simply actually, Force in of itself is nothing more than a psychic power that grants ID. As such its effect is entirely dependant on a warp charge and a psychic test, which makes it a potential but not definite effect. Similarly FnP is dependant on a D6 roll for it's effect which also makes it a potential effect. The FaQ clarifies that until potential effects tests are rolled they are not in applicable. To determine the result we need all effects to be accounted for before any are applied, this leads to the simple solution of rolling these potential effects first then applying all of the effects in the results if possible.

Because GWs writing is sloppy at times. I'm not seeing a direct they are not in the FAQ just that they are separate from the building. What is your point?

 FlingitNow wrote:
Because GWs writing is sloppy at times. I'm not seeing a direct they are not in the FAQ just that they are separate from the building. What is your point?

Wait...what? That doesn't make much sense....

It was a response to this:

If not, why does the rule book inform us in the very first section that Battlements are part of Multiple-Structured Buildings?
If so, why does the Frequently Asked Question tell us outright that they are not?

Which still does not give a reason as to why you seem to think they happen before everything else. What part of the FAQ leads you to this decision when nothing in your argument is mentioned in the FAQ?

Gotcha, referencing a FaQ that changed a rule.

Again you have not backed up your thinking with a rule or a FAQ that states that FNP and Force happen before all other SR's.....

Well actually the rules tell me as the effect is still not definite. The FaQ clarifies that and that the Force test must be taken before the FnP test, because Forces potential effect can negate FnP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Simply its impossible to apply an effect that has yet to be determined. By extention the tests must happen before anything else.

What part of the answer in that FAQ gives you the reason for Force going first? Does it say Force has to activate first because you need to know before you can determine whether or not you can make a FNP roll? Or Does it say you make the Force roll first then make the determination of whether you can make FNP rolls? It's a subtle difference, the first says the determination is the reason it goes first while in the the second simply says it goes first then you know if you can make a FNP roll. Is it a simpler interpretation that they are saying that immediately changes the timing of completion?

 FlingitNow wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yet as has been pointed out FAQs can't by definition change the rules. That is fact.

Yet they do.
Look at the Heldrake FAQ.
That's changing and inventing rules right there. It's not a clarification.

It is a clarification because most people reading the rules were unable to determine how it was mounted and how to play it. They clarified that for us. The intention was for the Helldrake to have a 360° fire arc all along. Just because most people didn't realise that didn't make it a rules change. They obviously also thought it was clear that the turning circle of the neck was exactly the same as the base it is on.

FAQ can't change the rules because an FAQ is a frequently asked question that they answer. No rules can possibly be changed as they do not change the rule books. Errata do that.

And the part about measuring from the Heldrake's base?
That part is in direct violation of the vehicle rules.
That's not clarification.
That's changing a rule.

This FaQs can change rules...

"Q: Do models in a multiple Toughness value unit who are involved in a Challenge still use the majority Toughness of their unit (Page 64)
A: No, they use their own Toughness value." 40k FaQ page 6-7

And the wound allocation. And Shadows in the Warp.

Seriously - claiming FAQs cannot change rules is simply incorrect and, in the face of the mountain of evidence to the contrary, either trolling or willingly ignorant.

FlingItNow, The one you need to look at is this one:

Q. What is the armour value of battlements? (p95)
A: Battlements have no armour value as they are not a
building. They serve to protect any models on the roof of
the building in the same way as barricades and walls (see
page 104), offering a 4+ cover save

While I agree with you it is very sloppy writing, it does outright state that Battlements are not buildings. Yet the very first section of the Battlement rules informs us they are bound by the Multiple-Structured Building rules. Within the section detailing Multiple-Structured Buildings, the rules do state out-right that each individual section are considered buildings in their own right, which would make Battlements bound by certain limitations set forth in the building rules. Thanks to the 'are not buildings' answer, it is now possible to say that a tank can embark into a Battlement where they where only limited to infantry prior, pure infantry by the building rules and Jump/Jet pack infantry by a specialized exception within the Battlement rules. This is a clear example of a Frequently Asked Question, poorly written as it is, being used to justify something which would prior be outright denied and there is no way to dispute it. The answer does clearly state that Battlements are not Buildings and this is a verdict coming down from Game Workshop we are dealing with here so it is hard to just wave away when it is pulled out as justification for an action.

That is just one that my faulty memory can drag up, because I love to scream "TANKS CAN CLIMB LADDERS" thanks to it. Many other examples exist throughout the Frequently Asked Questions where their 'clarification' has either been in direct violation of the basic rule book or created additional rules in order to bridge a gap. Given the fact that everyone whom down right despises how wide of a scope the Frequently Asked Questions are given, as every group I know treats the Frequently Asked Questions as a higher authority then the rule books, can point to at least one entry where they go against the very wording of the rule book I still can't fathom why you still state they are incapable of changing the rules.

The only way they don't change the rules is if you refuse to play with the Frequently Asked Questions influencing the game, and every group I know will point to them for rule disputes and take what they say over the rule books themselves....

While I agree with you it is very sloppy writing, it does outright state that Battlements are not buildings. Yet the very first section of the Battlement rules informs us they are bound by the Multiple-Structured Building rules.

I'm still not seeing your point. Clearly the rules do not mean that the battlements are buildings. Just an obvious example of the sloppiness of the rules writing. Battlements were therefore obviously never buildings despite that line in the rulebook. Just another example of GW not quite saying what they mean.

And the part about measuring from the Heldrake's base?
That part is in direct violation of the vehicle rules.
That's not clarification.
That's changing a rule.

But is never the less how the rules for the Helldrake always worked. Just because we weren't able to work that out doesn't mean it wasn't the rules.

Just like all the other examples when an FAQ rules against your interpretation it doesn't mean there was a rules change. Just means your interpretation was incorrect. Listing lots of FAQs that rule differently to your interpretation of the rules does not make an argument for FAQs changing rules.

I think Fling is back on "the rules written down, in the section called THE RULES, aren't actually the rule, "because"" , despite being told to stop that.

fling appears to believe that GW wrote some words just to trick us.

 FlingitNow wrote:

While I agree with you it is very sloppy writing, it does outright state that Battlements are not buildings. Yet the very first section of the Battlement rules informs us they are bound by the Multiple-Structured Building rules.

I'm still not seeing your point. Clearly the rules do not mean that the battlements are buildings. Just an obvious example of the sloppiness of the rules writing. Battlements were therefore obviously never buildings despite that line in the rulebook. Just another example of GW not quite saying what they mean.

And the part about measuring from the Heldrake's base?
That part is in direct violation of the vehicle rules.
That's not clarification.
That's changing a rule.

But is never the less how the rules for the Helldrake always worked. Just because we weren't able to work that out doesn't mean it wasn't the rules.

Just like all the other examples when an FAQ rules against your interpretation it doesn't mean there was a rules change. Just means your interpretation was incorrect. Listing lots of FAQs that rule differently to your interpretation of the rules does not make an argument for FAQs changing rules.

A Vehicle measuring from its base instead of its weapons mount is an undeniable rule change. There is no rule stating that the helldrake can do that unless you take the faq into account. So if they intended it to work that way ... but it didnt ... how does that make it not a rules change. Maybe someone could have figured out the head is a turret its still not allowance to not use the vehicle shooting rules. The helldrake obviously needed a rule change to work as intended.

If the rules they write say something other than they intended they get changed. Sometomes this happens through faq. Examples were posted enough here. This doesnt mean that its always easy to figure out when they actually change rules and when they are just clarifications. Just that they definitely have the potential to.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Just like all the other examples when an FAQ rules against your interpretation it doesn't mean there was a rules change. Just means your interpretation was incorrect. Listing lots of FAQs that rule differently to your interpretation of the rules does not make an argument for FAQs changing rules.

Except in the case I presented earlier. This is a rules change no matter how you slice it:

Warhammer 40k FAQ Pages 6-7 wrote:
Q: Do models in a multiple Toughness value unit who are involved in a Challenge still use the majority Toughness of their unit (Page 64)
A: No, they use their own Toughness value.

Proof that the FaQs can change rules...

That is not proof at all. All it means is that the FAQ clarified a rule of how to deal with challenges. A clarification that your interpretation of the rules before hand did not agree with.

 FlingitNow wrote:
That is not proof at all. All it means is that the FAQ clarified a rule of how to deal with challenges. A clarification that your interpretation of the rules before hand did not agree with.

There is literally nothing in the rules that even suggests that challenges should use their own toughness...

It was most definitely a change of the RAW.

Please - point to the rule that even implies a FMC gets Skyfire.
Anywhere in the BRB. Saying that FAQ didn't change a rule is ludicrous.

rigeld2 wrote:
Please - point to the rule that even implies a FMC gets Skyfire.
Anywhere in the BRB. Saying that FAQ didn't change a rule is ludicrous.

Remember - Fling has this bizarre notion that when they write a rulebook, with a section called "THE RULES", those arent the actual rules - the actual "rules" are what they intended us to read from their brains instead.
THus they can literally change frmo "the sky is blue" to "the sky is not blue", and it was just us "misinterpreting" "blue" when we should have known they meant "not blue".

Its a position Fling has been asked on a number of occasions to stop espousing here, as it is a very confusing one to anyone who, rightly, thinks they chose to write "THE RULES" and didnt randomly splurge words on the pages just to trick us.

The funny part is I have a couple of friends in the studio, and they agree that the often write something entirely opposite to what they later decide the rule shold be. THis idea that there is one single "rule" that they meant all along, that never changes, is ludicrous.

There is literally nothing in the rules that even suggests that challenges should use their own toughness...

It was most definitely a change of the RAW.

I agree it was a change in RaW but by definition it can not be a change in the rules. No amount of whining will change. FAQs do not and can not change the rules. They are not errata they are clarifications by definition. Anyone claiming that they change the rules simply does not know what an FAQ is.