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.

Without reading any of this, has anyone specifically said that the chapter master cannot be in a demi company?

A dark eldar FAQ gives some information, specifically Kabalite Warriors being upgraded to Kabalite Trueborn in formations, and making it completely legal to do so.

If they specifically disallowed it I would be very confused because that is a very clear contradiction of their own rules, although I can't say I'm surprised.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Dude. Relax. This isn't the sort of battle you draw a line in the sand over. The reality of the situation is that GW is using the term FAQ in a way that doesn't fit the standard definition. The common understanding is that FAQs are used to clarify ambiguous situations. GW is sometimes using them to change unambiguous rules.

1. Rules: "If x happens, do y."
2. FAQ Question: "If x happens, should I do y?"
3. FAQ Answer: "No. When x happens, you should so z."

That may be labelled as an FAQ, but it's really an Errata. An unambiguous rule is being changed, not clarified.

So... they can call it whatever they want. It may follow a question and answer format, but it fits the common definition for an errata and not for an FAQ.

No, by GW's definition, it is NOT an Errata. Why does nobody seem to get this?

Because that is exactly what it is, clearly spelled out by Kriswall.

gummyofallbears wrote:Without reading any of this, has anyone specifically said that the chapter master cannot be in a demi company?

A dark eldar FAQ gives some information, specifically Kabalite Warriors being upgraded to Kabalite Trueborn in formations, and making it completely legal to do so.

If they specifically disallowed it I would be very confused because that is a very clear contradiction of their own rules, although I can't say I'm surprised.

Yes, someone did.

Charistoph wrote:

Akaiyou wrote:Is chapter master legal in ANY formation available to space marines?

It depends on whose standards you are going by.

If you believe that Detachments only list units, than any Codex Marines Formation list that presents a Captain would allow for a Chapter Master, unless specifically Restricted.

If you believe that Detachments can list actual models instead of units (that the FAQ considers), then I am not aware of one that actually allows a Chapter Master model to be included.

Keep in mind, that Helbrecht, Kantor, and Calgar are not Chapter Master models any more then they are Captain models or Chaplain models.

Fragile wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Dude. Relax. This isn't the sort of battle you draw a line in the sand over. The reality of the situation is that GW is using the term FAQ in a way that doesn't fit the standard definition. The common understanding is that FAQs are used to clarify ambiguous situations. GW is sometimes using them to change unambiguous rules.

1. Rules: "If x happens, do y."
2. FAQ Question: "If x happens, should I do y?"
3. FAQ Answer: "No. When x happens, you should so z."

That may be labelled as an FAQ, but it's really an Errata. An unambiguous rule is being changed, not clarified.

So... they can call it whatever they want. It may follow a question and answer format, but it fits the common definition for an errata and not for an FAQ.

No, by GW's definition, it is NOT an Errata. Why does nobody seem to get this?

Because that is exactly what it is, clearly spelled out by Kriswall.

So we reject GW's definition in favor of Kriswall's? I even provided GW's definition of what an Errata is. That has been my point regarding this.

 gummyofallbears wrote:
Without reading any of this, has anyone specifically said that the chapter master cannot be in a demi company?

A dark eldar FAQ gives some information, specifically Kabalite Warriors being upgraded to Kabalite Trueborn in formations, and making it completely legal to do so.

If they specifically disallowed it I would be very confused because that is a very clear contradiction of their own rules, although I can't say I'm surprised.

It's in the new Codex: Space Marines FAQ that you can't take a chapter master in a demi company.

Charistoph, Nobody bloody cares what GW "defines" as "errata" or "FAQ" - except for you. That's literally it. We all get your "point".

And it's not "Kriswalls definition", it's simply what those words commonly mean.

lol... just run a chaplain?

nekooni wrote:
Charistoph, Nobody bloody cares what GW "defines" as "errata" or "FAQ" - except for you. That's literally it. We all get your "point".

And it's not "Kriswalls definition", it's simply what those words commonly mean.

He's not the only one. I, for instance, care as well and it's an important distinction.

Audustum wrote:

nekooni wrote:
Charistoph, Nobody bloody cares what GW "defines" as "errata" or "FAQ" - except for you. That's literally it. We all get your "point".

And it's not "Kriswalls definition", it's simply what those words commonly mean.

He's not the only one. I, for instance, care as well and it's an important distinction.

The distinction between FAQ and errata or the distinction between the content of GWs FAQ and GWs definition of a FAQ? Because he's only arguing about the later one.

nekooni wrote:Charistoph, Nobody bloody cares what GW "defines" as "errata" or "FAQ" - except for you. That's literally it. We all get your "point".

If we do not care about GW definitions, then that reduces what we learn and understand from them to properly apply them. If you want to understand what they are saying and how it is applied, you have to use their definitions in order to properly work them.

nekooni wrote:And it's not "Kriswalls definition", it's simply what those words commonly mean.

You were the one who referred to Kriswall's provided definition. I referred back to it for clarity and reference.

I have never seen anyone, before this set of updates, consider an FAQ to actually rewrite the rules to correct errors. They have always been considerations on how GW plays it. In other words, their House Rules.

Look up the definition of "errata" in the dictionary. Look at what the definition of "errata" is on the updates. These FAQs do not do the same things nor do they do them in the same manner.

One advantage of an Errata in this day of digital uploads is that the Errata and Amendments get updated to the digital version. The FAQs do not and have to be uploaded separately. This is a practical aspect that you all do not seem to understand.

OCaermada wrote:lol... just run a chaplain?

One cannot run two Chaplains in a Battle Company for the Free Transports. It is 1 Captain and 1 Chaplain for that setup. If you run 2 Chaplains, it does not qualify as a Battle Company and all the Transports cost points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nekooni wrote:
The distinction between FAQ and errata or the distinction between the content of GWs FAQ and GWs definition of a FAQ? Because he's only arguing about the later one.

No, I am arguing the former. There is a distinction between an FAQ and an errata, both in normal parlance and in GW's updates (yes, the documents are called that now, while the page is called "errata").

OP is regarding demi companies... plus lighten up bro...

 OCaermada wrote:
OP is regarding demi companies... plus lighten up bro...

Demi Companies make up the Battle Company. Read up bro.

 Charistoph wrote:

nekooni wrote:Charistoph, Nobody bloody cares what GW "defines" as "errata" or "FAQ" - except for you. That's literally it. We all get your "point".

If we do not care about GW definitions, then that reduces what we learn and understand from them to properly apply them. If you want to understand what they are saying and how it is applied, you have to use their definitions in order to properly work them.

nekooni wrote:And it's not "Kriswalls definition", it's simply what those words commonly mean.

You were the one who referred to Kriswall's provided definition. I referred back to it for clarity and reference.

I have never seen anyone, before this set of updates, consider an FAQ to actually rewrite the rules to correct errors. They have always been considerations on how GW plays it. In other words, their House Rules.

Look up the definition of "errata" in the dictionary. Look at what the definition of "errata" is on the updates. These FAQs do not do the same things nor do they do them in the same manner.

Kriswall wrote:That may be labelled as an FAQ, but it's really an Errata.

What exactly are you arguing then? That we should ignore what GW labels as "FAQ" whenever we think it's not supported by the rules as written? That these FAQ entries are just suggested houserules by GW?

I treat these FAQ entries as errata that change the rules if necessary. It's because - as I said earlier - I don't throw a temper tantrum just because GW puts a clarification in the FAQ section and not the errata section when it clearly should have been in the errata section, as it changes rules.

The point is that an Errata changes the rule and all assumptions that we make from that rule change. An FAQ is very specific to a question and although you can choose to make assumptions from that clarification you are then defining a house rule from that.

The best example is the DE warriors to trueborn FAQ. That was a specific question for a specific formation. To use that as the definitive rule change for all other formations that use DE warriors is false and therefore you would make a house rule to allow your assumption.

 rawne2510 wrote:
The point is that an Errata changes the rule and all assumptions that we make from that rule change. An FAQ is very specific to a question and although you can choose to make assumptions from that clarification you are then defining a house rule from that.

The best example is the DE warriors to trueborn FAQ. That was a specific question for a specific formation. To use that as the definitive rule change for all other formations that use DE warriors is false and therefore you would make a house rule to allow your assumption.

Yes, however I'm not suggesting you should apply the "Chaptermaster in a Demi-Company" FAQ entry to all other formations and entries since that would clearly break a ton of formations and obviously wasn't intended at all - e.g. not being able to buy Apothecaries for your Command Squad (different model and all) or not being able to upgrade a Librarian to a level 2 Psyker.
I'm suggesting that the FAQ simply changes the rules for that specific scenario. Which a "FAQ" technically couldn't do, could it? So I treat it as an errata.

 rawne2510 wrote:
The point is that an Errata changes the rule and all assumptions that we make from that rule change. An FAQ is very specific to a question and although you can choose to make assumptions from that clarification you are then defining a house rule from that.

The best example is the DE warriors to trueborn FAQ. That was a specific question for a specific formation. To use that as the definitive rule change for all other formations that use DE warriors is false and therefore you would make a house rule to allow your assumption.

Except we've had that same calrification in the Fracture of Biel-Tan FAQ as well. The intent is pretty clear, it is an upgrade that changes the units battlefield role but does not change the unit itself.

The intent may be clear but you can´t just arbitrarily say that because FAQ question A says this it means I can do it for options B, C & D.

It the reason that there is ambiguity in that fact the person writing the FAQ for space marines said you can´t upgrade a captain but the DE writer said you could with warriors. It is inconsistent and that could be another issue that it is the interpretation of 2-3 writers rather than every question is evaluated by all the rules writers.

 rawne2510 wrote:
The intent may be clear but you can´t just arbitrarily say that because FAQ question A says this it means I can do it for options B, C & D.

It the reason that there is ambiguity in that fact the person writing the FAQ for space marines said you can´t upgrade a captain but the DE writer said you could with warriors. It is inconsistent and that could be another issue that it is the interpretation of 2-3 writers rather than every question is evaluated by all the rules writers.

Absolutely. You shouldn't apply a specific answer to any and all similar situations. The CM upgrade is an option just like a Powersword is. But the FAQ isn't trying to prevent you from choosing any other option.

Now, FAQs that talk about more generic concepts - e.g. how Warp Charges are calculated, how Blast Templates and Jink interacts or how Jink and Overwatch interact - those are generic answers.

All of those FAQ entries change the rules as written. They are errata. GW misclassified them.

This has gotten WAY off topic and I don't want to touch the little nit picky circular argument you've got going on here, but in answer to OP's second question, you can take a non named CM as part of the strike force command in the various gladius strike force options (fist of medusa ect).

nekooni wrote:What exactly are you arguing then? That we should ignore what GW labels as "FAQ" whenever we think it's not supported by the rules as written? That these FAQ entries are just suggested houserules by GW?

I treat these FAQ entries as errata that change the rules if necessary. It's because - as I said earlier - I don't throw a temper tantrum just because GW puts a clarification in the FAQ section and not the errata section when it clearly should have been in the errata section, as it changes rules.

I thought that has been clear. FAQs do not change the Rules As Written. They are House Rules, which means they are employed at the whim of the users instead of the foundation of the game. I do not agree with putting the same weight on the FAQ as the Errata because I do not consider House Rules as RAW, but HYWPI. I am just following that YMDC tenet #4.

It is recognizing that difference which is important. Anything else is calling piss on a leg as rain. If you went in to an LGS and you started up a game, but then they started using a set of House Rules you were unaware of, but called them RAW, how would you feel?

nekooni wrote:Absolutely. You shouldn't apply a specific answer to any and all similar situations. The CM upgrade is an option just like a Powersword is. But the FAQ isn't trying to prevent you from choosing any other option.

The CM upgrade is in the Options list like a Power Sword, but there the similarities end, and that difference is one reason one the reference to the Truborn is pointless.

The CM judgement is also based on another FAQ which used the Canoptek Harvest as an example. The question was a generic information request regarding detachments which do not list things as "unit of" but "1 x". The response was that this is listing the model. The Captain unit carries one of two possible models, Captain and Chapter Master. As soon as you upgrade the Captain model to the Chapter Master model, you are no longer using a Captain model, and not fulfilling the Detachment's list.

The Kabalite Warriors are listed as a unit, not as individual models. Therefore, any changes to the models are not affected by the Formation list. So referring to this is rather pointless.

And all of this is only if you consider the House Rule of Formations listing models and not units as having any weight.

nekooni wrote:All of those FAQ entries change the rules as written. They are errata. GW misclassified them.

They no more change the rules as written than any other House Rule. They are not errata. That is YOUR reclassification, not GWs. It is HYWPI, not RAW.

 Charistoph wrote:

nekooni wrote:What exactly are you arguing then? That we should ignore what GW labels as "FAQ" whenever we think it's not supported by the rules as written? That these FAQ entries are just suggested houserules by GW?

I treat these FAQ entries as errata that change the rules if necessary. It's because - as I said earlier - I don't throw a temper tantrum just because GW puts a clarification in the FAQ section and not the errata section when it clearly should have been in the errata section, as it changes rules.

I thought that has been clear. FAQs do not change the Rules As Written. They are House Rules, which means they are employed at the whim of the users instead of the foundation of the game. I do not agree with putting the same weight on the FAQ as the Errata because I do not consider House Rules as RAW, but HYWPI. I am just following that YMDC tenet #4.

It is recognizing that difference which is important. Anything else is calling piss on a leg as rain. If you went in to an LGS and you started up a game, but then they started using a set of House Rules you were unaware of, but called them RAW, how would you feel?

nekooni wrote:Absolutely. You shouldn't apply a specific answer to any and all similar situations. The CM upgrade is an option just like a Powersword is. But the FAQ isn't trying to prevent you from choosing any other option.

The CM upgrade is in the Options list like a Power Sword, but there the similarities end, and that difference is one reason one the reference to the Truborn is pointless.

The CM judgement is also based on another FAQ which used the Canoptek Harvest as an example. The question was a generic information request regarding detachments which do not list things as "unit of" but "1 x". The response was that this is listing the model. The Captain unit carries one of two possible models, Captain and Chapter Master. As soon as you upgrade the Captain model to the Chapter Master model, you are no longer using a Captain model, and not fulfilling the Detachment's list.

The Kabalite Warriors are listed as a unit, not as individual models. Therefore, any changes to the models are not affected by the Formation list. So referring to this is rather pointless.

And all of this is only if you consider the House Rule of Formations listing models and not units as having any weight.

nekooni wrote:All of those FAQ entries change the rules as written. They are errata. GW misclassified them.

They no more change the rules as written than any other House Rule. They are not errata. That is YOUR reclassification, not GWs. It is HYWPI, not RAW.

Wait... is your contention that GW's FAQs are somehow unofficial house rules? I'm trying to understand.

His contention is the FAQ section of the rules are GW's House Rules, based upon their definitions of the different sections of the errata from several editions ago. Currently they make the FAQ part sound like it's just answering questions about the current rules they've published without them using the FAQ section to change rules, but we've seen that that isn't true. But, there's no mention of the FAQ part now as being GW's House Rules, just answers to commonly asked questions about the rules.

It makes no practical difference whether they're actually GW "House rules" or just clarifications - they're treated by most people as having the same weight of rules law as the errata and amendment sections of the rules updates.

 Kriswall wrote:

Wait... is your contention that GW's FAQs are somehow unofficial house rules? I'm trying to understand.

No, FAQs are Official House Rules. I thought that was quite clear. They are answering question based on how they would play it. HTWPI is House Rules. I thought that was a standard tenet here.

If they were planning on changing the actual foundational rules, then erratas would have been implemented to correct some key behaviors. The most glaring things are like the consideration that a Detachment can list models when everything else says they list units, or that Battle Brothers cannot Embark during Employment. The rules that are the foundation of the game are not changed at all by these FAQs, as their language remains exactly the same within the book. If the book's language doesn't change, then these FAQs cannot be Rules As Written. It really is quite simple.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Wait... is your contention that GW's FAQs are somehow unofficial house rules? I'm trying to understand.

No, FAQs are Official House Rules. I thought that was quite clear. They are answering question based on how they would play it. HTWPI is House Rules. I thought that was a standard tenet here.

If they were planning on changing the actual foundational rules, then erratas would have been implemented to correct some key behaviors. The most glaring things are like the consideration that a Detachment can list models when everything else says they list units, or that Battle Brothers cannot Embark during Employment. The rules that are the foundation of the game are not changed at all by these FAQs, as their language remains exactly the same within the book. If the book's language doesn't change, then these FAQs cannot be Rules As Written. It really is quite simple.

Maybe I missed it. From every single current FAQ/Errata states the following:

Although we strive to ensure that our rules are perfect,
sometimes mistakes do creep in, or the intent of a rule
isn’t as clear as it might be. These documents collect
amendments to the rules and present our responses to
players’ frequently asked questions. As they’re updated
regularly, each has a version number; when changes
are made, the version number will be updated, and any
changes from the previous version will be highlighted
in magenta. Where a version number has a letter,
e.g. 1.1a, this means it has had a local update, only in
that language, to clarify a translation issue or other
minor correction.

I do not see a single mention of "house rules" in this blurb.

 Happyjew wrote:
I do not see a single mention of "house rules" in this blurb.

Of course you don't. You didn't follow the process I laid out.

FAQs are Official RAI.

The problem lies in that too many people are equating a FAQ that changes the rules should be an Errata. By definition, sure I can buy that. However, just because a FAQ goes against your own biased (and incorrect) interpretation of a rule does not make a FAQ suddenly mislabeled; rather you were simply wrong. For an FAQ do be erroneously labeled, the rule would have to lead all to come to the same inherent conclusion. Then if a FAQ went the other way, it would legitimately be an Errata in disguise. However, in the case of this ruling, plenty of people read the rules as written, and were able to apply the correct function of the rule as intended to the list building mechanic. Therefor the rule required a FAQ to address those that were reading it incorrectly. Again, just cause you were wrong doesn't mean you get to claim "well I was right until they re-wrote the rule", because that is not what happened.

 quickfuze wrote:
The problem lies in that too many people are equating a FAQ that changes the rules should be an Errata. By definition, sure I can buy that. However, just because a FAQ goes against your own biased (and incorrect) interpretation of a rule does not make a FAQ suddenly mislabeled; rather you were simply wrong. For an FAQ do be erroneously labeled, the rule would have to lead all to come to the same inherent conclusion. Then if a FAQ went the other way, it would legitimately be an Errata in disguise. However, in the case of this ruling, plenty of people read the rules as written, and were able to apply the correct function of the rule as intended to the list building mechanic. Therefor the rule required a FAQ to address those that were reading it incorrectly. Again, just cause you were wrong doesn't mean you get to claim "well I was right until they re-wrote the rule", because that is not what happened.

No, the Chapter Master case is one that went against the written rules, just as the denial of Battle Brothers to Embark in Transports during Deployment.

Every single reference for how detachments are built state that they request units and never mention models by name. The only time a model is mentioned is when it is encapsulated by the unit construct. With that in mind, why would one think that the listing of a unit would mean that it is actually referencing a specific model and not allow that model to be upgraded to a different version as allowed by its unit Options?

If you feel it is otherwise, please list the rules which present how all the detachments are listed, from the generic, to Formations, to the Gladius, and highlight all the mentions of the term "model".

 Charistoph wrote:

 quickfuze wrote:
The problem lies in that too many people are equating a FAQ that changes the rules should be an Errata. By definition, sure I can buy that. However, just because a FAQ goes against your own biased (and incorrect) interpretation of a rule does not make a FAQ suddenly mislabeled; rather you were simply wrong. For an FAQ do be erroneously labeled, the rule would have to lead all to come to the same inherent conclusion. Then if a FAQ went the other way, it would legitimately be an Errata in disguise. However, in the case of this ruling, plenty of people read the rules as written, and were able to apply the correct function of the rule as intended to the list building mechanic. Therefor the rule required a FAQ to address those that were reading it incorrectly. Again, just cause you were wrong doesn't mean you get to claim "well I was right until they re-wrote the rule", because that is not what happened.

No, the Chapter Master case is one that went against the written rules, just as the denial of Battle Brothers to Embark in Transports during Deployment.

Every single reference for how detachments are built state that they request units and never mention models by name. The only time a model is mentioned is when it is encapsulated by the unit construct. With that in mind, why would one think that the listing of a unit would mean that it is actually referencing a specific model and not allow that model to be upgraded to a different version as allowed by its unit Options?

If you feel it is otherwise, please list the rules which present how all the detachments are listed, from the generic, to Formations, to the Gladius, and highlight all the mentions of the term "model".

Official RAI (which the GW FAQ is) can go against RAW. The GW FAQ clarifies that '1 Captain' in the Gladius is officially intended to mean '1 Captain [model]' and not '[a unit of] 1 Captain'.

The GW FAQ is the official final answer as to what is RAI.

I see an faq as the way that specific sitiation is ment to be played and errata is global change that affects every sitiation

 Charistoph wrote:
I have never seen anyone, before this set of updates, consider an FAQ to actually rewrite the rules to correct errors. They have always been considerations on how GW plays it. In other words, their House Rules.

Except many of the GW's FAQ's actually rewrite rules. Like meltabomb thing, this chapter master thing etc. Those didn't clarify or answer questions but actually change how rules works.

If you consider FAQ as their house rules guess that means I can after all use melta bombs 1 per guy after all. That's just house rule! And chapter master? I disagree with their house rule, I play with chapter masters in formations. And I stick some ad mech troops into BA drop pods as well(that was under FAQ part too right?)