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.

So rather than a debate about the contents of a FAQ, this has devolved into a debate about what a FAQ actually is and does? I might as well read forums about gun control arguments. At least then I'd learn something concrete like Jesus does support my right to have an AR-15.

 deviantduck wrote:
So rather than a debate about the contents of a FAQ, this has devolved into a debate about what a FAQ actually is and does? I might as well read forums about gun control arguments. At least then I'd learn something concrete like Jesus does support my right to have an AR-15.

Pretty sure Jesus has anti-death penalty, anti-scourge stance, while his Dad is pro-abortion. But that's RAW, while the current FAQ seems to contradict. Still waiting on an an Errata.

SJ

Once we get an official answer let me know because that's what my entire purchase will hinge on.

* Previous post withdrawn as it added nothing to the debate. I'm just bored and thought I'd poke the bear a little *

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The GW FAQ is the official last word on the matter.

You are free to make up your own house rules but if you stray from the GW FAQ then you are not playing the game the way it is officially to be played.

This should be patently clear.

As usual, you present nothing to support your claim when asked to present it.

Tenet #1, Quote it..

You are the one who is lacking any support.

GW provides its GW FAQs as official updates. (e.g. "Necrons Official Update for 7th Edition 1.0")

The FAQ section "answers commonly asked questions about the rules".



Nowhere does GW indicate that the FAQ section is a set of House Rules. You are literally making that up!

col_impact wrote:
You are the one who is lacking any support.

GW provides its GW FAQs as official updates. (e.g. "Necrons Official Update for 7th Edition 1.0")

The FAQ section "answers commonly asked questions about the rules".

Liar. I provided my support. Counter properly according to the tenets and quote, or properly reference, where it states that FAQs may change the written rules.

Charistoph.

To Repeat.

Nowhere does GW indicate that the FAQ section is a set of House Rules.

You are literally making that up!

Quit making stuff up!

At this point it looks like everyone else is playing by house rules and Charistoph is the only one playing by the real rules.

col_impact wrote:
Charistoph.

To Repeat.

Nowhere does GW indicate that the FAQ section is a set of House Rules.

You are literally making that up!

Quit making stuff up!

I am not making it up, and if you'd bother to listen to others, you'd know that.

Back during the days of 5th Edition, and a bit after, on their guide to their erratas specifically stated that the FAQs were House Rules and how THEY played the game. I am not the only one who remembers this, as Jeffersonian has also stated this, and no doubt remembers. And it was even pointed out with a link to the old site here posted by Buffo back in 2010, when one of the 5th Edition FAQs went live, that it stated the FAQs are not rules changes, but House Rules, on their own site which stated how to read them.

Now, that has been removed from the site (and I have stated as such), and nothing has been posted which changes this, nor has anything been posted by GW that FAQs are rules replacements.

In short, I am not making this stuff up. I posted the relevant data. You ignored it. Semantics do not work if you ignore what is stated.

But they also have not stated that the FAQs are changes to the game, either, unlike what you have stated. The only one making things up here is you, which is why I asked you to provide proper references to demonstrate otherwise.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Charistoph.

To Repeat.

Nowhere does GW indicate that the FAQ section is a set of House Rules.

You are literally making that up!

Quit making stuff up!

I am not making it up, and if you'd bother to listen to others, you'd know that.

Back during the days of 5th Edition, and a bit after, on their guide to their erratas specifically stated that the FAQs were House Rules and how THEY played the game. I am not the only one who remembers this, as Jeffersonian has also stated this, and no doubt remembers. And it was even pointed out with a link to the old site here posted by Buffo back in 2010, when one of the 5th Edition FAQs went live, that it stated the FAQs are not rules changes, but House Rules, on their own site which stated how to read them.

Now, that has been removed from the site (and I have stated as such), and nothing has been posted which changes this, nor has anything been posted by GW that FAQs are rules replacements.

In short, I am not making this stuff up. I posted the relevant data. You ignored it. Semantics do not work if you ignore what is stated.

But they also have not stated that the FAQs are changes to the game, either, unlike what you have stated. The only one making things up here is you, which is why I asked you to provide proper references to demonstrate otherwise.

So basically you have nothing backing up your argument.

Whereas, as already proven, the GW FAQ is an official update to the codex.

By definition, the GW FAQ provides official answers to rule questions.

col_impact wrote:
So basically you have nothing backing up your argument.

Whereas, as already proven, the GW FAQ is an official update to the codex.

By definition, the GW FAQ provides official answers to rule questions.

I'd hardly call historical precedence "nothing". I would hardly call a case of "not actually changing the rule, but clarifying it for purposes" as a case of "House Ruling", nothing.

No support from you that FAQs are actual rules changes or an inclusion in the codex, though, or anything else you said FAQs are, aside from them being official (that was never in argument). You'd rather just demean your opponent and not follow Tenet #1 to support your statements.

Charistoph, call anyone in this thread or any other thread I see you in a liar like that again purely to dismiss their point and you won't be participating any further.

To the thread in general, keep up being polite, you're mostly doing a good job so far. Remember, if you don't feel you can engage with a user because of how they are behaving, just flag their post and a mod will look into it. If you can't engage without maintaining your politeness, then you're better off putting them on your ignore list.

 motyak wrote:
[color=red]Charistoph, call anyone in this thread or any other thread I see you in a liar like that again purely to dismiss their point and you won't be participating any further.

PM sent regarding this.

I have not called anyone a liar to purely dismiss their point, only when they have misrepresented my case or position and have been warned.

Wherever the game is played, the BRB plus GW FAQ represents the official way to implement the game.

The faq portion of the GW FAQ represent official answers/clarification to confusing rule areas.


If a local group deviates from the BRB plus GW FAQ then that local group is the one implementing House Rules.

By definition, the BRB plus GW FAQ cannot possibly be House Rules. The BRB plus GW FAQ is the officially endorsed ruleset.

col_impact's summary is pretty precise actually.

Historical record is one thing, but current rules is another. Historically my Obliterators had access to autocannons instead of assault cannons, and nothing explicitly say they no longer have access to this, but I'd be getting weird looks from people when I insist they still have autocannons.

It doesn't matter what rules were considered what back then. I don't remember anything like that from that era, but no record I have shows that GW intended the FAQs to be House Rule. If the final Draft explicitly spells this out, I will eat my words, but I won't apologize for it; as it stands at the present nothing says they're House Rules. GW is always free to change their minds on the stance, but that's their decision to make.

It appears that some of you guys are using the term FAQ incorrectly. Those that are using the term correctly seem to be having trouble getting their points across.

The core rule books are official rules. Suppliments are official rules. Addendum are official rules. Errata are official updates to the official rules. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) are clarifications that offer possible intent as to what the original authors might have meant. There is no difference between core rules, suppliments, addendum, and Errata as each one is "rules as written". FAQs differ in that they are not written by the original authors, and at best count as "rules as intented". The major problem with rules updates is that they can contradict the rules as written; however, in the case of suppliments, addendum, and Errata, we are informed that the newer version takes precedence. FAQs unfortunately do not have the same weight when a contradiction occurs, unless a reason for the answer is given. When an FAQ response gives a single word or very short answer that contradicts the rules as written, no clarification occurs, just more follow-up questions being asked.

However, what I see from many posters above is the use of "FAQ" as the name of the document the information appears in, which is causing circular arguments when one side refers to the response as RAW while other side refers to them as houserules. The people calling the FAQ responses "houserules" are not calling the document "houserules", they are calling the answers given "houserules" because the FAQ format is neither a suppliment, addendum, nor Errata.

FAQ responses are RAI when they include an explanation, or do not contradict RAW.

FAQ responses are useless when they condradict a written rule without explanation.

I hope this helps the discussion.

SJ

By the above, anyone can decide they do not want to adhere to what a FAQ might say regarding a rule. (eg. Night Scythes now able to pickup occupants).
... good luck, TOs and judges out there that are going to have to deal with all the TFGs who will try to argue the "FAQs are just house rules" defense.

The problem is the current FAQs, going by the statements on the GW facebook page, are indeed written by the original authors of the rules (they are passed to the Game Designers).

And herein lies the issue with the impasse: Whether or not you agree with the answers given in a FAQ, they are indeed given by the Game Designers, the original Authors of the rules. And as with any game, even if the contradiction renders the situation worse, you cannot simply cherry pick moments to follow the FAQ or moments not to; that is no different than cherry picking which rules you wanna follow or not.

In the above example, there is technically no contradiction (this is a very technical reading of that specific ruling); If the Nightscythe does somehow get rendered not zooming but also not crashed by some external buff, then yes, the necron warriors can re-embark on it despite, in-universe, the beam being only a teleporter and the actual flyer not physically having the space to fit it. The Nightscythe innately has this ability like any other transport, it doesn't mean it needs to come into play during the actual game nor does it mean the nightscythe has any way of activating it on it's own. It might be an utterly useless rule for it to have, but then again the Bloodcrusher has a 6+ armor save when it already has a 5+ invul save.

I do admit that this ends up opening more questions than it answers, and an Errata to the actual Invasion Beam rule would have been better, but at the current moment in time this is what we have. The fact that this question came up at all means that there were enough ambiguous situations that somehow occurred during gameplay that it was worth an answer. We will never know what caused these situations, but they did apparently happen. Just because a FAQ has a seemingly useless application does not immediately turn them into "house rules" and optional to gameplay. They must still be adhered to and are no less valid than any other rules written by the game designers, even if they themselves end up ambiguous and open to debate (however that is something for specific cases such as the Nightscythe's ability).

Regardless, I'm hoping everyone is voicing their concerns over these controversial rulings, Necron or otherwise, on the respective Facebook pages.
The more comments about a particular thing that an answer receives, the more likely they are to address it properly in the final draft, after all.

(PS. fluff discussion, but on the Night Scythe example, if it can beam a unit down while zooming, would it not make sense that it could beam a unit up as well going the same speed?)

I always assumed the Nightscythe's Invasion Beam to be sort of a gun that uses infantry as ammunition, but that's just my interpretation.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
It appears that some of you guys are using the term FAQ incorrectly. Those that are using the term correctly seem to be having trouble getting their points across.

The core rule books are official rules. Suppliments are official rules. Addendum are official rules. Errata are official updates to the official rules. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) are clarifications that offer possible intent as to what the original authors might have meant. There is no difference between core rules, suppliments, addendum, and Errata as each one is "rules as written". FAQs differ in that they are not written by the original authors, and at best count as "rules as intented". The major problem with rules updates is that they can contradict the rules as written; however, in the case of suppliments, addendum, and Errata, we are informed that the newer version takes precedence. FAQs unfortunately do not have the same weight when a contradiction occurs, unless a reason for the answer is given. When an FAQ response gives a single word or very short answer that contradicts the rules as written, no clarification occurs, just more follow-up questions being asked.

However, what I see from many posters above is the use of "FAQ" as the name of the document the information appears in, which is causing circular arguments when one side refers to the response as RAW while other side refers to them as houserules. The people calling the FAQ responses "houserules" are not calling the document "houserules", they are calling the answers given "houserules" because the FAQ format is neither a suppliment, addendum, nor Errata.

FAQ responses are RAI when they include an explanation, or do not contradict RAW.

FAQ responses are useless when they condradict a written rule without explanation.

I hope this helps the discussion.

SJ

You and Charistoph are misusing the term "house rules".

The contents of an official document provided by the makers of 40k that officially updates the codex cannot by definition be a house rule.

 Charistoph wrote:

Back during the days of 5th Edition, and a bit after, on their guide to their erratas specifically stated that the FAQs were House Rules and how THEY played the game.

Something for which they were fairly widely ridiculed, and which they appear to have not carried over to the current FAQs.


Regardless, even back then, most players accepted that FAQs from the studio were about as official as rules answers were going to get, regardless of what the studio chose to call them.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
I always assumed the Nightscythe's Invasion Beam to be sort of a gun that uses infantry as ammunition, but that's just my interpretation.

The way the codex describes the beam, it sounds more like the orange side of a portal gun to me with the blue side of the portal on the Tomb World.


editor's note: EnTyme really needs to learn to proofread before he posts, though he is stunningly handsome.

 skoffs wrote:
Regardless, I'm hoping everyone is voicing their concerns over these controversial rulings, Necron or otherwise, on the respective Facebook pages.
The more comments about a particular thing that an answer receives, the more likely they are to address it properly in the final draft, after all.

(PS. fluff discussion, but on the Night Scythe example, if it can beam a unit down while zooming, would it not make sense that it could beam a unit up as well going the same speed?)

There are no rules covering how a unit can embark on a zooming transport. The FAQ response to the question no one has ever asked implies that rules exist allowing for a Necron unit to embark on a zooming Night Scythe; unfortunately, no explanation is give as to how a unit does this, nor are there rules added to allow it, nor an Errata granting Hover to the Night Scythe. This makes the FAQ response useless, as it cannot be used outside of houseruling it. But I'm pretty sure that point is lost on this audience.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 skoffs wrote:
Regardless, I'm hoping everyone is voicing their concerns over these controversial rulings, Necron or otherwise, on the respective Facebook pages.
The more comments about a particular thing that an answer receives, the more likely they are to address it properly in the final draft, after all.

(PS. fluff discussion, but on the Night Scythe example, if it can beam a unit down while zooming, would it not make sense that it could beam a unit up as well going the same speed?)

There are no rules covering how a unit can embark on a zooming transport. The FAQ response to the question no one has ever asked implies that rules exist allowing for a Necron unit to embark on a zooming Night Scythe; unfortunately, no explanation is give as to how a unit does this, nor are there rules added to allow it, nor an Errata granting Hover to the Night Scythe. This makes the FAQ response useless, as it cannot be used outside of houseruling it. But I'm pretty sure that point is lost on this audience.

SJ

Again. You are misusing the term house ruling. Please open up a dictionary.

If the Draft FAQ were official in its present form, the official ruling would be that units can embark on a zooming Night Scythe.

If you and your blokes play it so that units cannot embark on a zooming Night Scythe then you would be the ones house ruling.

It is impossible for GW to house rule their own game. They are the official providers of the rules.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

There are no rules covering how a unit can embark on a zooming transport.

In which case they follow the same rules as a non-zooming transport.

The only thing preventing it normally is the rule that says that units can't embark on a zooming flyer unless otherwise stated. The FAQ provides that 'otherwise stated'.


No additional rules are required beyond that point... the physical action of embarking would be the same as for any other flyer transport.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

It is impossible for GW to house rule their own game. They are the official providers of the rules.

The fact that they write the rules doesn't make it impossible for them to create house rules for their own game. They can very easily create rules that apply to their own games without making those rules 'official' releases, which would make them house rules.

However, once those rules are published as an official update to the game, as these FAQs will presumably be eventually, they become official rules rather than house rules... unless, of course, they choose to label them as house rules, as they did with the 5th edition FAQs.

col_impact wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 skoffs wrote:
Regardless, I'm hoping everyone is voicing their concerns over these controversial rulings, Necron or otherwise, on the respective Facebook pages.
The more comments about a particular thing that an answer receives, the more likely they are to address it properly in the final draft, after all.

(PS. fluff discussion, but on the Night Scythe example, if it can beam a unit down while zooming, would it not make sense that it could beam a unit up as well going the same speed?)

There are no rules covering how a unit can embark on a zooming transport. The FAQ response to the question no one has ever asked implies that rules exist allowing for a Necron unit to embark on a zooming Night Scythe; unfortunately, no explanation is give as to how a unit does this, nor are there rules added to allow it, nor an Errata granting Hover to the Night Scythe. This makes the FAQ response useless, as it cannot be used outside of houseruling it. But I'm pretty sure that point is lost on this audience.

SJ

Again. You are misusing the term house ruling. Please open up a dictionary.

If the Draft FAQ were official in its present form, the official ruling would be that units can embark on a zooming Night Scythe.

If you and your blokes play it so that units cannot embark on a zooming Night Scythe then you would be the ones house ruling.

It is impossible for GW to house rule their own game. They are the official providers of the rules.

Please, support your point with citation covering how a unit embarks on a zooming transport.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

Please, support your point with citation covering how a unit embarks on a zooming transport.

As per the transport rules, they move to within the requisite distance of an access point.

As per the flyer rules, the base counts as such an access point.


Are there other rules you're looking for?

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

Please, support your point with citation covering how a unit embarks on a zooming transport.

SJ

If the Draft FAQ were official in its present form, the official ruling would be that units can embark on a zooming Night Scythe.

 insaniak wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

Please, support your point with citation covering how a unit embarks on a zooming transport.

As per the transport rules, they move to within the requisite distance of an access point.

As per the flyer rules, the base counts as such an access point.


Are there other rules you're looking for?

Book, page number, the passage in quotes.

SJ