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.

This thread is blowing my mind.

House rule = Unofficial Rule created by players(common understanding)
House ~= Unofficial
Official House Rule = Official Unofficial Rule

What does that even mean?

This is how things normally work...

#1 - GW writes an ambiguous rule.
#2 - Players are generally confused by the rule and ask a clarifying question.
#3 - GW answers the question via an FAQ, clarifying the rule for the players. No rules change happens. Things are just less ambiguous.

This is how GW sometimes does things...

#1 - GW writes an unambigous rule.
#2 - Players are generally NOT confused by the rule and DO NOT ask a clarifying question.
#3 - GW creates a question and answers it via FAQ with an answer that contradicts the unambiguous rule, thereby changing the rules as written.

The first scenario is generally considered an FAQ. The second scenario is generally considered an Errata. Neither scenario is a "GW House Rule". GW makes the rules. Sometimes they present optional rules, but generally whatever commentary they make can be considered a gold standard. The rules source doesn't make house rules.

What some I believe are saying that where GW answer a question to improve clarity is where people can choose to make house rules on as they dislike the GW intent of their written ambiguous rule which doesn´t get changed.

GW never make a question and answer that as an FAQ which is an errata. when GW write an errata there is no question involved.

 rawne2510 wrote:
What some I believe are saying that where GW answer a question to improve clarity is where people can choose to make house rules on as they dislike the GW intent of their written ambiguous rule which doesn´t get changed.

GW never make a question and answer that as an FAQ which is an errata. when GW write an errata there is no question involved.

GW frequently makes FAQs which modify unambigious rules. Changes to unambiguous rules are generally understood to be Erratas. Your assertion that GW never makes FAQs that are effectively Erratas is measurably false.

I've been reading people say that Official GW FAQs are a sort of GW 'house rule' that can be ignored at will since they're not really changing the rules as written. While true that literally any ruling can be ignored, FAQs/Erratas should be considered official, set in stone clarifications/modifications of the rules and should not be considered some sort of optional GW 'house rule'.

If GW says (through their FAQs) that 'this is how we play this situation and this is how we generally expect you to play this situation in standard games of Warhammer 40k', you have a rules clarification. If GW says (through any source) that 'this is an optional rule you can use if you want, but it's not mandatory', you have optional rules, which I guess could be considered a type of GW 'house rule'.

What I meant was when they answer a question and people don´t agree. The people can choose to change it as their house rule not GWs.

An FAQ is not an errata. Within their FAQ pdf releases there are usually 2 sections. Errata and separately FAQs

 rawne2510 wrote:
What I meant was when they answer a question and people don´t agree. The people can choose to change it as their house rule not GWs.

An FAQ is not an errata. Within their FAQ pdf releases there are usually 2 sections. Errata and separately FAQs

No... I get that FAQ and Errata are not the same word. I'm just saying (as are many other people) that GW is using Errata correctly and sometimes using FAQ incorrectly. FAQs should clarify ambiguous rules. FAQs should NOT provide answers that contradict unambiguous rules. GW frequently creates FAQs which provide answers that contradict unambiguous rules. They are effectively using an FAQ to CHANGE how an unambiguous rules is resolved.

I am pretty sure that all their current FAQs are player created. So someone out there considers it ambiguous or just plain out doesn´t understand the rule.

Take the new horrors rules and maelific discipline. Their new rules don´t allow them to take it yet someone had to ask the question (I don´t consider it an ambiguous rule) but because the question only answered with regards to pink it has now got people saying that blues can take it. Making it ambiguous.

For example: BB's may embark on each other's transports. This isn't confusing or unusual in any way. It's part of the main rule book and is stated clearly in black and white. Instead of changing the rules of a formation, (skyhammer) GW answers the question about adding IC's by declaring that BB's may NOT embark in each other's transports. This is an errata presented in the form of a FAQ. (and an endless source of headaches because the rest of the book is still written for the "old" BB use)

 MattKing wrote:
For example: BB's may embark on each other's transports. This isn't confusing or unusual in any way. It's part of the main rule book and is stated clearly in black and white. Instead of changing the rules of a formation, (skyhammer) GW answers the question about adding IC's by declaring that BB's may NOT embark in each other's transports. This is an errata presented in the form of a FAQ. (and an endless source of headaches because the rest of the book is still written for the "old" BB use)

True this was a badly effected reply. But it was meant to be to stop the ability for BB units to deploy in transports on their own eg. Culexus assassin from jumping into a drop pod. I don´t believe it was meant to kick units out of a dedicated transport just because a BB IC joined them.

 MattKing wrote:
For example: BB's may embark on each other's transports. This isn't confusing or unusual in any way. It's part of the main rule book and is stated clearly in black and white. Instead of changing the rules of a formation, (skyhammer) GW answers the question about adding IC's by declaring that BB's may NOT embark in each other's transports. This is an errata presented in the form of a FAQ. (and an endless source of headaches because the rest of the book is still written for the "old" BB use)

This is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. The community generally considered the 'deploying in a Battle Brother's Transport' rules to be unambiguous. The rules clearly and unambiguously allowed it. Sure, some people might have been confused, but generally speaking, these rules were unambiguous and not contested. Instead of issuing an Errata to change the text of the rules, GW just published a FAQ saying (I'm paraphrasing), "Am I allowed to deploy a unit/model in a Battle Brother's Transport? No."

Instead of issuing an Errata to change the core rules from "Do X" to "Don't do X", they issued an FAQ saying "Can I do X? No." That's a conflict. That's bad rules writing. That's why you don't use an FAQ to change core rules that didn't need clarification.

FAQ = used to clarify
Errata = used to change

GW is using FAQs to change rules. It's bad technical writing.

tneva82 wrote:

 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?)

Apparently someone doesn't know what "before this set of updates" means. Those examples you gave were all from this set of updates. The closest before now was the Heldrake's angle of fire, and even that could be argued as the idea of a dragon head on a Vehicle really isn't covered in the rulebook, clarity is needed.

For another thing, I have made cases as to why the ruling that it is only 1 model in Assault can use Grenades is crap. It has to do with GW's own use of "throw" is only with Ranged Attack profiles and never with the Melee Attack profiles. I even recommended that they errata this section to cover this change on the FAQ feedback on Facebook page.

And yes, the Battle Brothers not being able to Embark Transports during Deployment is in the FAQ. If you note that nothing under Amendments and Errata ever mentions Battle Brothers. In the BRB, the Battle Brothers section specifically states as an example, that they can Embark on Transports and zero restrictions are mentioned.

Kriswall wrote:This thread is blowing my mind.

House rule = Unofficial Rule created by players(common understanding)
House ~= Unofficial
Official House Rule = Official Unofficial Rule

What does that even mean?

And now I see where the disconnect in our communication is.

I do not see the "House" in House Rule to mean "unofficial", I see it as "a rule to be used in this House". Tournament changes like the ITC rounds are considered House Rules. Are they unofficial? Not for the purposes of the Tournament being run. In that House of the Tournament, those rules are 100% official.

If I am playing in a GW tournament or in a GW store, I fully expect the GW FAQ to be in effect. If I am in my LGS which sells GW, but is not owned/operated by GW, then I will be working with them to find out how they prefer to play these ambiguities.

 Kriswall wrote:

 MattKing wrote:
For example: BB's may embark on each other's transports. This isn't confusing or unusual in any way. It's part of the main rule book and is stated clearly in black and white. Instead of changing the rules of a formation, (skyhammer) GW answers the question about adding IC's by declaring that BB's may NOT embark in each other's transports. This is an errata presented in the form of a FAQ. (and an endless source of headaches because the rest of the book is still written for the "old" BB use)

This is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. The community generally considered the 'deploying in a Battle Brother's Transport' rules to be unambiguous. The rules clearly and unambiguously allowed it. Sure, some people might have been confused, but generally speaking, these rules were unambiguous and not contested. Instead of issuing an Errata to change the text of the rules, GW just published a FAQ saying (I'm paraphrasing), "Am I allowed to deploy a unit/model in a Battle Brother's Transport? No."

Instead of issuing an Errata to change the core rules from "Do X" to "Don't do X", they issued an FAQ saying "Can I do X? No." That's a conflict. That's bad rules writing. That's why you don't use an FAQ to change core rules that didn't need clarification.

FAQ = used to clarify
Errata = used to change

GW is using FAQs to change rules. It's bad technical writing.

This one I agree with you about. The community wanted the rule to be changed and GW effected this poorly and went further than the community expected.

I think to GW, errata = FAQ. They're not exactly deep thinkers.

Martel732 wrote:
I think to GW, errata = FAQ. They're not exactly deep thinkers.

I think they're just really bad at technical writing in general. Their rules are not clear, concise or consistent in many places. This includes FAQs/Erratas.

 Kriswall wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I think to GW, errata = FAQ. They're not exactly deep thinkers.

I think they're just really bad at technical writing in general. Their rules are not clear, concise or consistent in many places. This includes FAQs/Erratas.

Basically. Now can we accept this and stop arguing?

 gnome_idea_what wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I think to GW, errata = FAQ. They're not exactly deep thinkers.

I think they're just really bad at technical writing in general. Their rules are not clear, concise or consistent in many places. This includes FAQs/Erratas.

Basically. Now can we accept this and stop arguing?

NEVER! Then what would we do in this subforum? Talk about rules in a calm and constructive way? Heresy. Report to your regimental Commissar for disciplinary action.

Martel732 wrote:
I think to GW, errata = FAQ. They're not exactly deep thinkers.

A conclusion brought on by desire, not by facts. That would be taking everything they said, ignoring it, and placing authority not provided in position.

 Charistoph wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I think to GW, errata = FAQ. They're not exactly deep thinkers.

A conclusion brought on by desire, not by facts. That would be taking everything they said, ignoring it, and placing authority not provided in position.

...or it could just be a conclusion brought on by observational evidence and critical thinking?

 Kriswall wrote:
...or it could just be a conclusion brought on by observational evidence and critical thinking?

Fact: GW has differentiated the two terms, and not associated them as being the same.
Fact: Other people have been conflating them to be the same.

The only result by observational evidence and critical thinking is that people are making a determination by their own desires. They want them as errata, so they treat them as errata. However, facts don't care about your feelings, they just are.

While, yes, they are atrocious technical writers, we shouldn't attribute something to what they have written that they haven't attributed to something they've written. I know the FAQs suggest we should do that, after all, so many different things that were answers are attributing things in ways that they never wrote, but seriously, that's taking it way to far.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
...or it could just be a conclusion brought on by observational evidence and critical thinking?

Fact: GW has differentiated the two terms, and not associated them as being the same.
Fact: Other people have been conflating them to be the same.

The only result by observational evidence and critical thinking is that people are making a determination by their own desires. They want them as errata, so they treat them as errata. However, facts don't care about your feelings, they just are.

While, yes, they are atrocious technical writers, we shouldn't attribute something to what they have written that they haven't attributed to something they've written. I know the FAQs suggest we should do that, after all, so many different things that were answers are attributing things in ways that they never wrote, but seriously, that's taking it way to far.

I really don't know why you've decided to draw a line in the sand on this and doggedly state that since GW labelled something as an FAQ (something that clarifies the rules) that it can't possibly be an Errata (something that changes the rules). More power to you though. You are, however, measurably wrong. Regardless of labelling, GW absolutely issues FAQs that do not clarify, but instead change rules widely considered to be unambiguous. The Battle Brothers Transport issue raised earlier is a perfect example.

 Kriswall wrote:
I really don't know why you've decided to draw a line in the sand on this and doggedly state that since GW labelled something as an FAQ (something that clarifies the rules) that it can't possibly be an Errata (something that changes the rules). More power to you though. You are, however, measurably wrong. Regardless of labelling, GW absolutely issues FAQs that do not clarify, but instead change rules widely considered to be unambiguous. The Battle Brothers Transport issue raised earlier is a perfect example.

I am not measurably wrong. People treating it as something GW haven't stated it is becomes measurably wrong. GW may be measurably wrong by using the wrong process to introduce the possibility of a change, but that doesn't change the actual measurable facts.

I don't know why people keep insisting something isn't what it states it is. I'm pretty reasonable, but to me, all this is lying to someone who may be new and reading this for the first time. It's pissing on the leg and calling it rain. Why should I find that acceptable any more than trying to pass Tyranids off as Space Marines?

The GW FAQ reveals official RAI (ie what the rules are officially supposed to do).

In some cases the GW FAQ issues errata to rewrite the RAW but in other cases the GW FAQ pithily uses a 'Q and A' FAQ format to reveal the RAI.

It does not matter in either case if the official RAI contradicts the RAW. In either case, the GW FAQ presents the official RAI which changes officially how to play the game.

If you don't adhere to the RAI presented in the GW FAQ, you are deviating from the official game and are playing by House Rules.

A person who adheres to the RAI presented in the GW FAQ is playing the game in the manner officially endorsed and supported by GW.

 Charistoph wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 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?)

Apparently someone doesn't know what "before this set of updates" means. Those examples you gave were all from this set of updates. The closest before now was the Heldrake's angle of fire, and even that could be argued as the idea of a dragon head on a Vehicle really isn't covered in the rulebook, clarity is needed.
.

Before this set. Tyranid Prime ( an IC ) could not join unit in a drop pod.

Fragile wrote:
Before this set. Tyranid Prime ( an IC ) could not join unit in a drop pod.

Still can't. They are Come The Apocalypse which treats all units as enemies. So, unless you can provide evidence that I can have my units Embark in to YOUR Transports, I'd say that is a total wash.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
I really don't know why you've decided to draw a line in the sand on this and doggedly state that since GW labelled something as an FAQ (something that clarifies the rules) that it can't possibly be an Errata (something that changes the rules). More power to you though. You are, however, measurably wrong. Regardless of labelling, GW absolutely issues FAQs that do not clarify, but instead change rules widely considered to be unambiguous. The Battle Brothers Transport issue raised earlier is a perfect example.

I am not measurably wrong. People treating it as something GW haven't stated it is becomes measurably wrong. GW may be measurably wrong by using the wrong process to introduce the possibility of a change, but that doesn't change the actual measurable facts.

I don't know why people keep insisting something isn't what it states it is. I'm pretty reasonable, but to me, all this is lying to someone who may be new and reading this for the first time. It's pissing on the leg and calling it rain. Why should I find that acceptable any more than trying to pass Tyranids off as Space Marines?

I think you're probably too committed to your interpretation to really understand what I'm saying.

I also don't think letting a new player know that some of GW's FAQs (commonly understood to be used for clarification of ambiguous situations) are being used to change unambiguous rules is a bad thing. In fact, it's probably a good thing to let new players know that GW's rules are not always clear, concise or consistent and that they sometimes mislabel erratas as FAQs. A new player might otherwise read a clear, unambiguous rule, have no reason to check the FAQ (due to having no question as to how the rule works) and then be shocked during a game to find that the rule is played in a completely different way despite no errata existing to change the clear, unambiguous wording. That's the sort of thing that can frustrate a new player.

GW may be one of the largest players in the miniature gaming market (sitting at #2 after FFG right now, Go X-Wing!), but their rules writing ability is worse than most.

If it is clear an unambiguous then they wouldn´t be checking the errata either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
No matter how any rule reads everyone should have with them or at least read all the FAQ/Errata documents published for the armies they use (that includes the BRB).

 rawne2510 wrote:
If it is clear an unambiguous then they wouldn´t be checking the errata either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
No matter how any rule reads everyone should have with them or at least read all the FAQ/Errata documents published for the armies they use (that includes the BRB).

I disagree with your first statement. Erratas frequently affect changes to unambiguous rules. Erratas can be issued for balance reasons, etc. that have nothing to do with ambiguity.

And yes, I do agree to your second statement.

You said that if the rule was clear then a person wouldn´t look in an FAQ for any changes. The same could be said of checking the errata


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So at this point it wouldn´t matter if the FAQ´d it or errata´d it. The person still wouldn´t check

 rawne2510 wrote:
You said that if the rule was clear then a person wouldn´t look in an FAQ for any changes. The same could be said of checking the errata


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So at this point it wouldn´t matter if the FAQ´d it or errata´d it. The person still wouldn´t check

I don't think the same could be said for Erratas. Erratas change rules, so everyone should read every Errata. FAQs clear up ambiguous situations. If the rules seem straightforward, most people don't bother looking for an FAQ.

 Charistoph wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Before this set. Tyranid Prime ( an IC ) could not join unit in a drop pod.

Still can't. They are Come The Apocalypse which treats all units as enemies. So, unless you can provide evidence that I can have my units Embark in to YOUR Transports, I'd say that is a total wash.

What are you talking about? They are not CTA with themselves. WHAT?

Q: If a Tyranid unit takes a Mycetic Spore, can an Independent Character join the brood before deployment (and hence deep strike in with the brood)? (pg54)
A: No.

Your consistently proven wrong Charistoph.

Fragile wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Before this set. Tyranid Prime ( an IC ) could not join unit in a drop pod.

Still can't. They are Come The Apocalypse which treats all units as enemies. So, unless you can provide evidence that I can have my units Embark in to YOUR Transports, I'd say that is a total wash.

What are you talking about? They are not CTA with themselves. WHAT?

Q: If a Tyranid unit takes a Mycetic Spore, can an Independent Character join the brood before deployment (and hence deep strike in with the brood)? (pg54)
A: No.

Your consistently proven wrong Charistoph.

Your first message in that quote says "Drop Pod", which is for Space Marines, not a Tyrannocyte, which is for Tyranids. Charistoph took your wording literally, and probably didn't realize that you meant the Tyrannocyte, which is commonly called the Tyranid Drop Pod.