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.

FLing - found that Skyfire quote yet? Anything stating that FMCs get Skyfire?

Nope, thanks for conceding

Why would the skyfire have any baring on what an FAQ is? Did I know that FMCs where supposed to be able to choose to skyfire before the FAQ? No because the rulebook gave me no indication that they could. Was I surprised by the FAQ? Again no I figured it was most likely an oversight, but had no real evidence to support that until the FAQ.

So my interpretation was wrong as was everyone's who thought that FMCs couldn't choose to skyfire.

Until the written rule was changed by the FAQ, FMCs could not skyfire. It was not interpretation, it was fact.

Unless of course you beleive that, when they wrote the rules, they randomly splurged words on the page, and we were supposed to pretend otherwise?

No I believe they write the rules to communicate the rules to us. Just they do it imperfectly. Unless you believe they write rules perfectly so that their intentions are always 100% clear from the written text? You really believe that?

Claiming that RAW=The Rules but also that FAQs can change the rules is nonsense. You can't hold both opinions as they are incompatible. You claim the rules are only the most literal translation of the text well an FAQ is literally only an answer to a rules question. So by RAW an FAQ can not change the rules.

So which is it are RAW =/= The Rules or is it impossible for FAQs to change the rules. It is totally hypocritical to hold both beliefs.

Can we stop hijacking and get back to FNP vs Force?

Another false dichotomy by Fling

THe Shrine blurb is just wrong. Apparently everything else can be imperfect, apart from that statement. THAT is a hypocritical position to hold.

I believe that, when they write a book called a rulebook, with a section called THE RULES, that those are the rules they intended to write. You dont believe that.

One allows a common game to be played, the other requires muddy "RAI" style arguments before you can play. GUess which is preferable.

Edited by Manchu

Back on topic no rule change as it was an FAQ not an Errata.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Back on topic no rule change as it was an FAQ not an Errata.

You'll move back "on topic" so you can ignore the parts proving you wrong, as ever?

Classic.

I interact fantastically, playing this wonderful game of 40k and fantasy. I do believe that your idea of "RAI" being the rules is one not supportable or workable in real life, and results in issues actually playing the game - as you will play by what you think the rules writers meant along, and that conflicts with the rulebook rules (by defintiion - the actual rules) that the other person would expect to play with.

You're essentially always playing houserules, but with the arrogance of thinking youre playing by the actual rules.

Being an FAQ or Errata has no bearing on when something is a rules change, as has been proven.

It was a rules change, as otherwise you could potentially break the rules depending on how they resolved. This way you dont get to break the rules unintentionally, by imposing an order that doesnt otherwise exist.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Anyone claiming that they change the rules simply does not know what an FAQ is.

I think the problem is that whoever in GW writes the FAQs doesn't know what an FAQ is. They seem to think it is another eratta.

Yikes!

Rule #1 everyone, seriously.

You'll move back "on topic" so you can ignore the parts proving you wrong, as ever?

Classic.

Removed as it was impolite. I apologise if I caused anyone offense.

Now if you want to discuss this further please PM me and stick to the topic at hand.

Fling - reported. Please dont continue the personal attacks.

I was back on the topic at hand.

I even posted personal, first hand accounts of studio staff stating to me that they change what they think should happen - so your concept of one "true rule" to rule them all is strictly, utterly, false.

What they write in the section called THE RULES are the rules. The studio accepts this, 99% of the gaming public accept this, you?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Fling - reported. Please dont continue the personal attacks.

I was back on the topic at hand.

I even posted personal, first hand accounts of studio staff stating to me that they change what they think should happen - so your concept of one "true rule" to rule them all is strictly, utterly, false.

What they write in the section called THE RULES are the rules. The studio accepts this, 99% of the gaming public accept this, you?

It wasn't meant as a personal attack. Yet your posts frequently attack me.

I unlike you believe that GW designed the rules. Can we get back on topic please?

Then use the triangle of friendship. And you didn't think talking about how someone would find it difficult to get a game, based on your blatant mischaracteriisation alone, would be offensive?

I was already on topic. Retread the actual post that you selectively quoted.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Then use the triangle of friendship. And you didn't think talking about how someone would find it difficult to get a game, based on your blatant mischaracteriisation alone, would be offensive?

I was already on topic. Retread the actual post that you selectively quoted.

OK I'll put it as genuine question. You have told me that playing by RAW is the only way to have a common game and that discussing rules before a game is ludicrous. Thus when you inform your opponent that only the unhelmeted sergeant in his tactical squad can ever draw LOS how do your games go?

 FlingitNow wrote:

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.

Clearly the writers at GW do not know what FAQ stands for, as there are in fact rules changes in the FAQ's and not just the Errata section of the document.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

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.

Clearly the writers at GW do not know what FAQ stands for, as there are in fact rules changes in the FAQ's and not just the Errata section of the document.

But I thought your stance was that we had to follow what was written at all times? They wrote that the FAQs are FAQs so they must be FAQs and not errata.

Fling - you agree that every rule includes hidden underlying message of "unless otherwise stated"?
You have a rule, it must be obeyed! (Unless otherwise stated)
It isn't written, but it's there. Otherwise the rules wouldn't work.
You agree with this correct?

So why are FAQ's any different? They include errata and amendments that change rules. And FAQ's that don't (unless they do). Same logic as every other rule in the game.

 grendel083 wrote:
Fling - you agree that every rule includes hidden underlying message of "unless otherwise stated"?
You have a rule, it must be obeyed! (Unless otherwise stated)
It isn't written, but it's there. Otherwise the rules wouldn't work.
You agree with this correct?

So why are FAQ's any different? They include errata and amendments that change rules. And FAQ's that don't (unless they do). Same logic as every other rule in the game.

FAQs aren't rules they are explanations of rules.

 FlingitNow wrote:
FAQs aren't rules they are explanations of rules.

So we must ignore any and all FAQ's that change rules?
Because many do change rules, beyond any doubt.

So the Heldrake FAQ must be ignored, and you must never measure from the base. Correct?

 FlingitNow wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
Fling - you agree that every rule includes hidden underlying message of "unless otherwise stated"?
You have a rule, it must be obeyed! (Unless otherwise stated)
It isn't written, but it's there. Otherwise the rules wouldn't work.
You agree with this correct?

So why are FAQ's any different? They include errata and amendments that change rules. And FAQ's that don't (unless they do). Same logic as every other rule in the game.

FAQs aren't rules they are explanations of rules.

I think the problem here is semantics. Errata are changes to the rules, and FAQs are explanations of the rules. They are included in the same sheet so it is easy to mix them up.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
Fling - you agree that every rule includes hidden underlying message of "unless otherwise stated"?
You have a rule, it must be obeyed! (Unless otherwise stated)
It isn't written, but it's there. Otherwise the rules wouldn't work.
You agree with this correct?

So why are FAQ's any different? They include errata and amendments that change rules. And FAQ's that don't (unless they do). Same logic as every other rule in the game.

FAQs aren't rules they are explanations of rules.

I think the problem here is semantics. Errata are changes to the rules, and FAQs are explanations of the rules. They are included in the same sheet so it is easy to mix them up.

But the FAQ's within the FAQ pages have most definitely been used to change rules.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
Fling - you agree that every rule includes hidden underlying message of "unless otherwise stated"?
You have a rule, it must be obeyed! (Unless otherwise stated)
It isn't written, but it's there. Otherwise the rules wouldn't work.
You agree with this correct?

So why are FAQ's any different? They include errata and amendments that change rules. And FAQ's that don't (unless they do). Same logic as every other rule in the game.

FAQs aren't rules they are explanations of rules.

I think the problem here is semantics. Errata are changes to the rules, and FAQs are explanations of the rules. They are included in the same sheet so it is easy to mix them up.

But the FAQ's within the FAQ pages have most definitely been used to change rules.

Really, I view them as the same thing, because that's pretty much how they work.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
Fling - you agree that every rule includes hidden underlying message of "unless otherwise stated"?
You have a rule, it must be obeyed! (Unless otherwise stated)
It isn't written, but it's there. Otherwise the rules wouldn't work.
You agree with this correct?

So why are FAQ's any different? They include errata and amendments that change rules. And FAQ's that don't (unless they do). Same logic as every other rule in the game.

FAQs aren't rules they are explanations of rules.

Do you remember the FaQ about Shadows in the warp?

It used to state that SitW did not effect Psykers that are embarked in transports.

It now states that SitW does effect Psykers that are embarked in transports.

Are these both a clarification of how the rule works? If so why are the contradictory?

One of them had to be a rules change. Surely you can see that right?

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
Fling - you agree that every rule includes hidden underlying message of "unless otherwise stated"?
You have a rule, it must be obeyed! (Unless otherwise stated)
It isn't written, but it's there. Otherwise the rules wouldn't work.
You agree with this correct?

So why are FAQ's any different? They include errata and amendments that change rules. And FAQ's that don't (unless they do). Same logic as every other rule in the game.

FAQs aren't rules they are explanations of rules.

Do you remember the FaQ about Shadows in the warp?

It used to state that SitW did not effect Psykers that are embarked in transports.

It now states that SitW does effect Psykers that are embarked in transports.

Are these both a clarification of how the rule works? If so why are the contradictory?

One of them had to be a rules change. Surely you can see that right?

The first one was a mistake in FAQ the change was an starts to the FAQ as they literally changed the body of the text of the FAQ.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
Fling - you agree that every rule includes hidden underlying message of "unless otherwise stated"?
You have a rule, it must be obeyed! (Unless otherwise stated)
It isn't written, but it's there. Otherwise the rules wouldn't work.
You agree with this correct?

So why are FAQ's any different? They include errata and amendments that change rules. And FAQ's that don't (unless they do). Same logic as every other rule in the game.

FAQs aren't rules they are explanations of rules.

Do you remember the FaQ about Shadows in the warp?

It used to state that SitW did not effect Psykers that are embarked in transports.

It now states that SitW does effect Psykers that are embarked in transports.

Are these both a clarification of how the rule works? If so why are the contradictory?

One of them had to be a rules change. Surely you can see that right?

The first one was a mistake in FAQ the change was an starts to the FAQ as they literally changed the body of the text of the FAQ.

LOL Really? Citation needed.

The first one was a valid rule at the time.

One of them had to be a change in the rules.

Sorry, your refusal to acknowledge this makes your argument invalid.

So Fling, you claim the following FAQ is just a clarification of existing rules, not a change or new one:

C:CSM FAQ wrote:Q: How do I determine the Arc of Sight for a Heldrake’s ranged weapon? (p52)
A: Treat the Heldrake’s ranged weapon as a Turret Mounted Weapon, measuring all ranges from the edge of the Heldrake’s base nearest to the target unit

Since this is (apparently) just a clarification, please show how measuring from the base was part of the rules all along.
Please include page numbers of the rules you're using.

 grendel083 wrote:
So Fling, you claim the following FAQ is just a clarification of existing rules, not a change or new one:

C:CSM FAQ wrote:Q: How do I determine the Arc of Sight for a Heldrake’s ranged weapon? (p52)
A: Treat the Heldrake’s ranged weapon as a Turret Mounted Weapon, measuring all ranges from the edge of the Heldrake’s base nearest to the target unit

Since this is (apparently) just a clarification, please show how measuring from the base was part of the rules all along.
Please include page numbers of the rules you're using.

I would love to see these citations too. The same was already asked several times but was ignored so far ... i wonder why

Either that or show how these were a part of the rules all along.
Please include page numbers of the rules you're using.

40k FAQ wrote:Q: Can Flyers in Hover mode still choose to use the Skyfire special rule? (p81)
A: No.

40k FAQ wrote:Q: Flyers are entitled to choose whether or not to use the Skyfire special rule at the start of each Shooting phase. Can Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures also do this? (p49)
A: Yes

Since I seem to have lost my thread.....

Hover pg 81: "If a flyer is hovering, treat it exactly as a fast skimmer." Do fast skimmers have Skyfire? Can they use Skyfire?

There are clearly times when they have chosen to make grand assumptions on how thoroughly they cover things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for the Heldrake does it have any barrels to trace LoS from? Without it you cannot shoot. The FAQ tells you that you don't need them. Does it change the rules or tell you how to deal with a model without them?