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.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
If someone doesn't have access to Facebook, how are they getting access to the GW website? Magic?

If someone doesn't know about these forums and goes to their site or just googles "Warhammer faq", what will come up?

In addition, if you are not signed up, accessing anything worthwhile on Face book is a trial to the point of not even bothering to try.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yarium wrote:
I don't have a Facebook account, but I can still access all of this by visiting their facebook page. Yeah, this is not the best way to go about it - it should be on the website - but this is their official Facebook page, and they say this is official (and not a draft), and the copy of the image says it's official... so it's official.

Is the link to this on their website? Or does one have to rely on the words of others in order to access it?

And I have tried accessing it without Facebook (my forum browser on my PC does not have Facebook signed in), and it is quite the pain.

Honestly, I doubt the average individual would know to look for ANY errata, let alone how to go about that. Still, what is and is not official is hard to nail down anyway.

 Charistoph wrote:
Is the link to this on their website? Or does one have to rely on the words of others in order to access it?

It's hard for me to access the names on the Do Not Fly list, but they still definitely exist, and are definitely very official. Whether or not it's easy for you to find does not change how official it is. I agree that it should be easier to find. There should be a link. But... there isn't. Shrug. It's just there for now. Sorry, but it's official, and it's now a thing.

casvalremdeikun wrote:Honestly, I doubt the average individual would know to look for ANY errata, let alone how to go about that. Still, what is and is not official is hard to nail down anyway.

As to why, they may have heard it from another, but not where to locate it.

When one goes to check updates, for thing most people do is a web search these days, if they do not go directly to the company's website directly.

And how many of those would think that Facebook would be the sole location for these FAQs?

Yarium wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Is the link to this on their website? Or does one have to rely on the words of others in order to access it?

It's hard for me to access the names on the Do Not Fly list, but they still definitely exist, and are definitely very official. Whether or not it's easy for you to find does not change how official it is. I agree that it should be easier to find. There should be a link. But... there isn't. Shrug. It's just there for now. Sorry, but it's official, and it's now a thing.

Not a good comparison. The only time the average person needs to access the DNF list is to make sure they or anyone they are traveling with are not on it. The officials who are to determine the list and those who need to check the list to prevent fliers need to access it (Oversight committees would be part of those who determine the list). In addition, there is always the Freedom of Information Act...

As a potential game organizer, each player needs to have access to these things. It is generally expected that if one is planning on using and FAQ/Errata, they need to have the print out with them. How easy is it to print out this FAQ from a Facebook page?

To be fair, Facebook is the sole location for the "preliminary" FAQs.

These are not finished. They're trying to get feedback on these, and what better way than putting them on social media where it is easy for someone to post/reply?

It's official so far as the Facebook people are concerned.

Doesn't change the fact that if I go to the GW website OR the Black Library website and look at the FAQs/Errata section... it's not there.

This actually makes perfect sense. How better to correct a fractured rule set requiring purchases from multiple sources than with fractured FAQs/Erratas requiring downloads from multiple sites? Makes total GW sense. This is great news!

Whether or not it's easy to access, or to even know to access it or not, doesn't change that it's there, and is accessible. Just watch for the sign saying "Beware of the leopard."

 Charistoph wrote:
As a potential game organizer, each player needs to have access to these things. It is generally expected that if one is planning on using and FAQ/Errata, they need to have the print out with them. How easy is it to print out this FAQ from a Facebook page?

Well, you can print the image that was posted here. Right click, save the image address, paste into a new tab/browser, hit the Enter/Return key, and hit print. That's not that hard. I am sorry for folks that don't even know to access the Facebook Page, and groups that don't know about the change, but them's the breaks. GW has not put it in a convenient location. I suspect that the Customer Relations person at GW is not able to talk or make requests of the guys that run the website. Probably a lot of company bureaucracy involved. Let's not forget that these are the same folks that have DIFFERENT faq's on both the Black Library and proper GW websites. Both of those are official, though due to dates involved, one obviously holds precedence. So arguing that because it's not in the same place it always way is not an argument.

 Yarium wrote:
Whether or not it's easy to access, or to even know to access it or not, doesn't change that it's there, and is accessible. Just watch for the sign saying "Beware of the leopard."

I don't think this situation would pass the reasonable person standard. Go out and tell 100 random strangers that gaming company XYZ publishes FAQs/Erratas in a FAQs/Erratas section on their website. Then ask those same people whether they think they would be able to find all of the FAQs/Erratas in this section. More specifically, ask them if they think they'd need to look anywhere other than the FAQs/Erratas section for FAQs and Erratas.

I'm betting you'd get 100 people who would not think to search Facebook for FAQs that are 'official' but not listed in the FAQs/Erratas section of the company's website.

This is the issue. Is this an official FAQ? Sure. Is there a reasonable expectation that the average player would know about it? I don't think you can say yes. You might not know about this if...

1. You don't use Facebook.
2. You use Facebook, but don't check it often.
3. You use Facebook, but don't follow any game related groups.
4. You don't frequent gaming forums.
5. You know about the FAQs/Erratas section of the company website and reasonably expect it to contain all of the FAQs/Erratas.

Nice reference, by the way, but in the real world Arthur Dent would have a strong argument that a proper notification of pending construction work was not made.

 Kriswall wrote:
Nice reference, by the way, but in the real world Arthur Dent would have a strong argument that a proper notification of pending construction work was not made.

Thanks! Wasn't too sure who might get the reference, but it pretty adequately explains the current FAQ situation.

And yes, if GW was a person, they would most certainly not be reasonable!

You are absolutely correct. It is an official FAQ/Errata. It is entirely unreasonable for someone to know about it though!

Unfortunately regardless of where the faq comes from, as long as the source can be verified as being from GW, then it's official.

Because if you simply disregard something because you cannot easily access it with a google search, then it would invalidate a lot of the datasheets that were "limited edition" or were only printed in a White Dwarf.

Like that one Blood Angel's formation with the Assault Marines. I had no idea it existed and nothing on the website or anything outside of White Dwarf implied it would have existed. But I can't just say "that formation is illegal". It's hard to find and obscure, but it's legal because it came from a verifiable GW source. Same could be said of a lot of those "limited time" formations that came on the website bundles too.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Unfortunately regardless of where the faq comes from, as long as the source can be verified as being from GW, then it's official.

Because if you simply disregard something because you cannot easily access it with a google search, then it would invalidate a lot of the datasheets that were "limited edition" or were only printed in a White Dwarf.

Like that one Blood Angel's formation with the Assault Marines. I had no idea it existed and nothing on the website or anything outside of White Dwarf implied it would have existed. But I can't just say "that formation is illegal". It's hard to find and obscure, but it's legal because it came from a verifiable GW source. Same could be said of a lot of those "limited time" formations that came on the website bundles too.

I guess you missed the point of what I and Kriswall were saying, then.

If you go in to a group you haven't been in to before, and then just tell them it is there, but no one in the group has Facebook on their phone, etc, but expect them to accept this on your say so, is the problem.

While the argument over appropriate locations to publish FAQs and errata is fascinating, let's leave this thread for discussing the actual contents of the FAQs and errata, hmm?

 Kriswall wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
There is a specific discussion thread guys

I'll just leave this here:

Q: Can units that are Battle Brothers embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment?

A: No.

Bam! No more assassains in drop pods.

No more lots of things in Drop Pods.

Also, I play Tau Empire. What are Battle Brothers?

Noooo, no more GK Purifiers in my DA drop pods :(

I haven't read through the 14 pages yet, and I'm sure someone has already said it, but I'm SUPER excited that this ruling finally got settled.

Q: Can a model choose between saves, even if one save is numerically inferior? For example, can a
Ravenwing Biker take a 4+ re-rollable Jink save over its 3+ Armour Save?
A: Yes.

BAM!

steelreign wrote:

Q: Can a model choose between saves, even if one save is numerically inferior? For example, can a
Ravenwing Biker take a 4+ re-rollable Jink save over its 3+ Armour Save?
A: Yes.

BAM!

Yea they went against RAW several times. this included.

 DeathReaper wrote:

steelreign wrote:

Q: Can a model choose between saves, even if one save is numerically inferior? For example, can a
Ravenwing Biker take a 4+ re-rollable Jink save over its 3+ Armour Save?
A: Yes.

BAM!

Yea they went against RAW several times. this included.

Why would this be against RAW? Haven't we always been instructed to take the "best" save? Best is a value judgment. If I need my last Terminator to die for some strategic reason, the "best" save from my perspective is the 5++, not the 2+. This is why you don't bake value judgments into rules. It's not like RAW tells us that we must prioritize saves with the lowest die roll required. We prioritize what we consider the best.

The better save was absolutely defined. Best isn't a value judgement given you are told how to determine which save is better

Unless you have another definition of "best" that doesn't care which one is better?

 Kriswall wrote:
Why would this be against RAW? Haven't we always been instructed to take the "best" save? Best is a value judgment. If I need my last Terminator to die for some strategic reason, the "best" save from my perspective is the 5++, not the 2+. This is why you don't bake value judgments into rules. It's not like RAW tells us that we must prioritize saves with the lowest die roll required. We prioritize what we consider the best.

I believe the original dispute is that the Rulebook does in fact state that a lower save is better, and this can be found under the section on Armour Saves, with the rest of the characteristics, near the start of the BRB. It actually says "thus a lower save is better". Common language suggests an order in this terminology. Specifically, the idea of "Good", "Better", "Best". It then logically follows that, given a lower save being "better", the lowest save would be "best". This would mean that "best" is not a value judgement, according to the BRB, but rather whatever the lowest save currently is despite any other modifiers.

The opposite argument is that, as you put it, what is "best" is a value judgement, and that GW's wording of "lower is better" is merely a comment about the rule, and not the rule itself. Now, in my opinion, this would be a RAI interpretation, since we can't simply pick and choose when a statement in the book is a comment about a rule, and when a statement is the actual given rule.

The FAQ has clarified that the RAI is correct, and I am happy they have given direction on that. Means this argument is well and thoroughly put to bed.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The better save was absolutely defined. Best isn't a value judgement given you are told how to determine which save is better

Unless you have another definition of "best" that doesn't care which one is better?

Yes, let's!

Where is the best invulnerable save defined? Where the best cover save?

You're told how invulnerable and cover saves differ from armour

Is the definition of "better" one of those differences?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You're told how invulnerable and cover saves differ from armour

Is the definition of "better" one of those differences?

Then which one is better, 3+ armor save or 3+ invulnerable save?

You know that the example in rulebook spells out that lower armor save is better than higher armor save, nothing more.

Where does it state you MUST use the best Save?

That hasn't been an actual statement since 5th Edition.

You just always have the advantage of using the best Save. That means to me that I cannot force a Hammernator to use their Terminator Save instead of their Storm Shield Save, not that he MUST use his Storm Shield Save.

Naw wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You're told how invulnerable and cover saves differ from armour

Is the definition of "better" one of those differences?

Then which one is better, 3+ armor save or 3+ invulnerable save?

You know that the example in rulebook spells out that lower armor save is better than higher armor save, nothing more.

In terms of the rules - as long as both are available to be taken, they're equal. Same as a model with terminator armour being given a suit of relic terminator armour having two 2+ saves

You also know the rule book tells you how inv and cover saves DIFFER. If the definition of better is not included with those differences, it still applies

Naw wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You're told how invulnerable and cover saves differ from armour

Is the definition of "better" one of those differences?

Then which one is better, 3+ armor save or 3+ invulnerable save?

You know that the example in rulebook spells out that lower armor save is better than higher armor save, nothing more.

The answer, of course, is that it depends on what else is going on. If you're being attacked by an attack with AP1, 2 or 3, the invuln save is better. If you're being attached by an attack that ignores invuln saves, the armor save is better. If neither of these things is happening, the saves are equivalent. The "best" save is whichever one benefits the player more in a given scenario.

All else equal, a 2+ armor save protects you 83.33% of the time. A rerollable 3+ invuln save protects you 88.89% of the time. In this instance, the 3++ rerollable save is clearly better.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Naw wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You're told how invulnerable and cover saves differ from armour

Is the definition of "better" one of those differences?

Then which one is better, 3+ armor save or 3+ invulnerable save?

You know that the example in rulebook spells out that lower armor save is better than higher armor save, nothing more.

In terms of the rules - as long as both are available to be taken, they're equal.

Really? Your rulebook must be different then than mine. Page 8 talks about Armour save and explicitly says Unlike other characteristics, the lower an Armour Save is, the better. No comparison to Invulnerable Save or Cover Save there.

Same as a model with terminator armour being given a suit of relic terminator armour having two 2+ saves

You also know the rule book tells you how inv and cover saves DIFFER. If the definition of better is not included with those differences, it still applies

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. You were talking RAW, but could not provide support here. You and I both know that 4+ re-rollable is better than 3+. I know in some cases my 4+ Invulnerable save is better than my 3+ Cover Save, or even 2+ Armour Save.

As Charistoph pointed out, I am not mandated to take my 3+ save, but have the advantage of using the best available save to me. And as said, I know 4+ re-rollable is better.

You are basing your whole argument on page 8 which explains how Armour Saves differ from other characteristics. Nothing more, just Armour Saves, not Invu/Cover.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:

The answer, of course, is that it depends on what else is going on. If you're being attacked by an attack with AP1, 2 or 3, the invuln save is better. If you're being attached by an attack that ignores invuln saves, the armor save is better. If neither of these things is happening, the saves are equivalent. The "best" save is whichever one benefits the player more in a given scenario.

Correct, and I am given the advantage of using the best possible save available. By forcing me to use 3+ rather than re-rollable 4++ I'm clearly not having the advantage of using the best save in a given situation. And that is against the rules as written.

I would argue that a Guardian jetbike only has one armor save, and its 3+.

The wargear entry for eldar jetbike specifies the model riding an eldar jetbike has a 3+ armor save.

The profile for warlocks on jetbikes lists their save as 3+

regardless of profile, having the eldar jetbike as listed above states the model has a 3+ armor save when riding the jetbike.

Not the model has its armor save and an optional 3+ save, that is the models armor save when riding the bike.

Graviton states it rolls to wound versus armor save.

RAW a warlocks best save does not matter until it is making its saving throw, the graviton rule tells you which value you to use (ARMOR SAVE) not (BEST SAVE) when rolling to wound.

so the warlock is wounded on 3+, ap is 2, and has a 4++ save it can take from rune armor.

a Guardian is wounded on 3+ (it has eldar jetbike, which tells us the models armor save is a 3+)

 Charistoph wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
If someone doesn't have access to Facebook, how are they getting access to the GW website? Magic?

If someone doesn't know about these forums and goes to their site or just googles "Warhammer faq", what will come up?

In addition, if you are not signed up, accessing anything worthwhile on Face book is a trial to the point of not even bothering to try.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yarium wrote:
I don't have a Facebook account, but I can still access all of this by visiting their facebook page. Yeah, this is not the best way to go about it - it should be on the website - but this is their official Facebook page, and they say this is official (and not a draft), and the copy of the image says it's official... so it's official.

Is the link to this on their website? Or does one have to rely on the words of others in order to access it?

And I have tried accessing it without Facebook (my forum browser on my PC does not have Facebook signed in), and it is quite the pain.

I do not even have a facebook email. I depend on the kindness of strangers and my wife lol. Like nearly all women she has a facebook thing.

We probably don't need to rehash the whole 'best save' debate in this thread... The pertinent points have been made.

 insaniak wrote:
We probably don't need to rehash the whole 'best save' debate in this thread... The pertinent points have been made.

Awwwe. Besides, you made me look up what "pertinent" means.

Back on topic. If something was so obvious it wouldn't need to be in a FAQ. I'm very happy to see logic win in so many cases, showing what the intent has been all along.

The dreadnought +2A is in an errata somewhere or part of the FAQ package?

It's not part of the faqs. It's an individual post on their facebook page.

Roknar wrote:
It's not part of the faqs. It's an individual post on their facebook page.

But it is set up like the FAQ Drafts, just without the "draft" title attached.