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.

 Jidmah wrote:
Having it clarified by GW beats needing to argue a blockhead any day though.

Absolutely, 100%. I don't care if people think asking these questions is dumb, the fact that someone DID ask and GW answered is better than people saying nothing to save face then having to deal with this by ourselves when it actually crops up in a game.

pointless818 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Isn't the community site owned by GW? Doesn't that also make it GW's site? I don't see where you're making the distinction here.
Its a document called the Designers' commentary that clarifies some aspects of the rule set that they designed, posted on a GW site in addition to the core rules.
That makes it official. Claiming its not official because its not on a specific site is foolish, especially when considering that Black Library and Forge World also posts rules and are also part of GW.

All of GWs official errata/faq documents are on www.games-workshop.com or here: http://www.warhammerdigital.com/Home/Faqs.html

They are smart enough not to let warhammer-community or their Facebook team make official rulings. Additionally the format is not correct, nor does it have the official banner and version number that ALL the others do.

It's just a friendly help-you-along document from the PR people.

So the Wrath of Magnus FaQ wasn't ever official?

You know, the document titled 'Official FaQ' posted by GW?

How is it not an FAQ? There are questions in it, that have been frequently asked, and now answered. Also, how is it not official? It's uploaded, in text and same format that all their errata/FAQs have been in the past, on one of GWs official websites.

The length people will go through to exploit and abuse a game system is seriously beyond me. It actually baffles me.

 alleus wrote:
How is it not an FAQ? There are questions in it, that have been frequently asked, and now answered. Also, how is it not official? It's uploaded, in text and same format that all their errata/FAQs have been in the past, on one of GWs official websites.

The length people will go through to exploit and abuse a game system is seriously beyond me. It actually baffles me.

Personally I'm of the opinion the people who make those arguements don't when/if they actually play, they just like to make the argument online so they can criticize GW.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

So the Wrath of Magnus FaQ wasn't ever official?

You know, the document titled 'Official FaQ' posted by GW?

You mean this document Matt?
https://17890-presscdn-0-51-pagely.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Wrath_of_Magnus_v1.0_Dec16-1.pdf

It says right on it, with the correct formatting....Official Update for 7th Edition, Version 1.0

The 8th edition ""Designer's Commentary"" is not official, nor does it have the correct formatting or a version number.

It's incredible the lengths you people will go to, to prove my point, AND THEN COMPLETELY DISREGARD A FACTUAL ARGUMENT.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 alleus wrote:
How is it not an FAQ? There are questions in it, that have been frequently asked, and now answered.

Again, this is an FAQ in the strictest sense (NOBODY is arguing that)

 alleus wrote:
Also, how is it not official? It's uploaded, in text and same format that all their errata/FAQs have been in the past, on one of GWs official websites.

except it's not in the correct format, doesn't have the official banner, a version number, nor is it on either website that hosts their FAQS and Errata, I provided links above.

 alleus wrote:
The length people will go through to exploit and abuse a game system is seriously beyond me. It actually baffles me.

The lengths people will go to be intentionally obtuse is beyond me. It actually baffles me.......

Oh boy, you must be a joy to play wargames with...

Is it released by Games workshop? Yes.
Does this mean it's official? Yes, as it is a FAQ released by GW themselves.
Does the WoM FAQ look different than any other current FAQ? No, except for the 40K logo

BrianDavion wrote:

Personally I'm of the opinion the people who make those arguements don't when/if they actually play, they just like to make the argument online so they can criticize GW.

I'd say that's very close to the matter. I am of the opinion, Warhammer community/Facebook have made a few rules mistakes regarding 8th in the recent past and, to me, are not a credible source of rules clarifications. I think it is foolish for us (8th edition 40k players) to "be cool" with half-arsed responses, make the answers official, or don't make them at all.

I want to be able to walk into any store, club, tournament and play by the SAME RULES in each one. I travel between states and in my experience, this is not the case (past editions).

As an example, MTG would not be as popular as it is today if people played by different rules in each other town you played in.

 The Grumpy Eldar wrote:

Does the WoM FAQ look different than any other current FAQ? No, except for the 40K logo

Maybe you have not seen the document, I'll show you. It is very clearly missing the official banner and version #.

It clearly said "Official Update for 7th Edition, Ver. 1.0" And the logo on top isn't even a necessity especially if that tittle took three lines, so they most likely conserved for space.

It's official if you like it or not. Not that it matters as we're in 8th Ed. anyway.

Point is, if GW has really turned the corner then FAQ's shouldn't be a big deal. If it's a dumb question, just answer it and move on. Players and game creators should have a synergistic relationship, not an adversarial one. Build up some trust and good faith, and everyone benefits.

Nothing is true or a lie.

There is only the Emperor's truth and Heresy.

pointless818 wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

So the Wrath of Magnus FaQ wasn't ever official?

You know, the document titled 'Official FaQ' posted by GW?

You mean this document Matt?
https://17890-presscdn-0-51-pagely.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Wrath_of_Magnus_v1.0_Dec16-1.pdf

It says right on it, with the correct formatting....Official Update for 7th Edition, Version 1.0

The 8th edition ""Designer's Commentary"" is not official, nor does it have the correct formatting or a version number.

It's incredible the lengths you people will go to, to prove my point, AND THEN COMPLETELY DISREGARD A FACTUAL ARGUMENT.

And yet by your logic before it isn't official because it was only ever on Warhammer Community and not with the other FaQs.
Maybe look to see what I was arguing, rather than jumping in head first and actually proving MY point - being on the Community site does not make something unofficial, unlike what you said earlier.



And something doesn't need to be titled "Official" to be official... or are the 8th Edition rules not official for you because it isn't titled "The Official 8th Edition Rulebook".

Is it an FaQ as typically defined by GW? No, but then GW's officially defined FaQs are a combination of actual FaQ and Errata. The Designer's Commentary is an FaQ by another name, and (what do you know) is full of Questions that have been Answered by the people who officially designed the game to clarify things for people, and it was posted on GW's official community page.

...huh.


It's one thing if this was just an article written by the PR team as you said, but when it's answered by the actual design team and only released by the PR team through an article you have to go through some crazy mental gymnastics to decide that in fact it can't be trusted by the PR team have made mistakes in the past, even though they're not even the ones who made the damn document.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
A moving plasma cannon firing at a flyer at night overheats on a 1-4. Damn solar-powered coolant regulators.

Look, its dark and the firer is in a panic trying to hit a fast moving target. Of course he's going to hit the wrong button or hold down the trigger for too long

\
How can you defend such nonsense?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
A moving plasma cannon firing at a flyer at night overheats on a 1-4. Damn solar-powered coolant regulators.

Look, its dark and the firer is in a panic trying to hit a fast moving target. Of course he's going to hit the wrong button or hold down the trigger for too long

\
How can you defend such nonsense?

You appeared to have missed the emote.

Rude posts are against Dakka's OFFICIAL rules. --Janthkin

Arguing over how "official" it is seems sort of pointless, as you can probably guess by threads like this going round and round until someone gets angry and it is locked. All that really matters is if the general player base uses it or not. I would say that most "average players" will be using this and be confused at any argument about its "officialness". If the document was full of questionable rulings then an argument could be made for it being disregarded. However, it seems rather reasonable and simply clarifications of the rules, not actually changing anything.

I would like to ask if people not using it disagree with any of the particular answers that it gave. If you disagree with it being official, yet coincidentally play every ruling the way they suggest, then what is the point in arguing?

Yeah, I'll take a document by the designers as official personally. Presumably the vast majority of tournaments will as well. I think that's simple enough.

 Galas wrote:

Q: Can a Battle-forged army ever have fewer than 0
Command Points?
A: No.
Regardless of how many Auxiliary Support Detachments
you take, you can never start a battle with fewer than 0
Command Points.

Another stupid argument put to bed

BUT this should make your army Illegal / not battle forged for purposes of matched play.

 Deuce11 wrote:

 Galas wrote:

Q: Can a Battle-forged army ever have fewer than 0
Command Points?
A: No.
Regardless of how many Auxiliary Support Detachments
you take, you can never start a battle with fewer than 0
Command Points.

Another stupid argument put to bed

BUT this should make your army Illegal / not battle forged for purposes of matched play.

Yeah they made that unnecessarily vague. On one hand, having negative command points vs having 0 command points has no obvious effect, so why are they specifying that you can never start a battle with fewer than 0 if it just means negative command points become 0 command points?

On the other hand, if they mean that you aren't allowed to create a battle forged army that has fewer than 0 command points, "you can never start a battle with fewer than 0
Command Points" is not at all clearly forbidding certain army compositions.


This is the classic "You Can’t Put Too Much Water into a Nuclear Reactor" ambiguity.

pointless818 wrote:


Maybe you have not seen the document, I'll show you. It is very clearly missing the official banner and version #.

Are you saying games workshop aren't allowed to change their behaviour and formatting regarding FAQs with a new edition?
Don't forget that the community website is relatively new and didn't exist when many of the old FAQs were posted. Maybe it is the new official location for such info.
That is their decision to make, not yours.

BrianDavion wrote:

 alleus wrote:
How is it not an FAQ? There are questions in it, that have been frequently asked, and now answered. Also, how is it not official? It's uploaded, in text and same format that all their errata/FAQs have been in the past, on one of GWs official websites.

The length people will go through to exploit and abuse a game system is seriously beyond me. It actually baffles me.

Personally I'm of the opinion the people who make those arguements don't when/if they actually play, they just like to make the argument online so they can criticize GW.

I'd like to think that, too. But, when I look at some of the arguments people put forth, and how they argue them, I sometimes fear if any of them are exactly the sort of person who studies the new penal code each year to find some technicality to allow them to get away with murder, and if they will promptly start committing murders if they find such a loophole. We now have people arguing what is required to merely label something as "official".

Put it this way, if you tried to argue at a tournie or store that the rules within this document shouldn't apply to you (and you're going to play it a different way) just because GW didn't post it in the same specific URL as the 7th ed FAQ's then you'd be laughed out of the room. It's an internet hardman argument.

 Galas wrote:

Q: Can a Battle-forged army ever have fewer than 0
Command Points?
A: No.
Regardless of how many Auxiliary Support Detachments
you take, you can never start a battle with fewer than 0
Command Points.

Another stupid argument put to bed

Mind you it doesn't mean you can't take say 20 aux det as your army(assuming no det limit). You just don't start it with -X but 0.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Technically this isn't even a FAQ, just Dev Commentary.

I'd suspect that we'll see organized FAQs coming out in the next month or so, when they can gather some play data, more questions, and organize them into proper indexes and factions.

What you think FAQ is? Lots of those answers are answers to Questions Frequently Asked in this forum as well.

MaxT wrote:
Put it this way, if you tried to argue at a tournie or store that the rules within this document shouldn't apply to you (and you're going to play it a different way) just because GW didn't post it in the same specific URL as the 7th ed FAQ's then you'd be laughed out of the room. It's an internet hardman argument.

But in that case the counter argument is that you have just made every half assed or incorrect interpretation of 8th that the community site and FB published is also official?

By the way do not expect any free official Faq's your going to be buying those in the chapter approved and codex's.

SeanDrake wrote:

MaxT wrote:
Put it this way, if you tried to argue at a tournie or store that the rules within this document shouldn't apply to you (and you're going to play it a different way) just because GW didn't post it in the same specific URL as the 7th ed FAQ's then you'd be laughed out of the room. It's an internet hardman argument.

But in that case the counter argument is that you have just made every half assed or incorrect interpretation of 8th that the community site and FB published is also official?

By the way do not expect any free official Faq's your going to be buying those in the chapter approved and codex's.

Interesting claim you got there. Got any proof?
Were there no FAQs in 3rd ed due to chapter approved?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

SeanDrake wrote:

MaxT wrote:
Put it this way, if you tried to argue at a tournie or store that the rules within this document shouldn't apply to you (and you're going to play it a different way) just because GW didn't post it in the same specific URL as the 7th ed FAQ's then you'd be laughed out of the room. It's an internet hardman argument.

But in that case the counter argument is that you have just made every half assed or incorrect interpretation of 8th that the community site and FB published is also official?

By the way do not expect any free official Faq's your going to be buying those in the chapter approved and codex's.

Interesting claim you got there. Got any proof?
Were there no FAQs in 3rd ed due to chapter approved?

None that I remember, White Dwarf/Chapter Approved WAS the faq. Not that I agree with the person you're quoting.

For the benefit of the people claiming the latest FAQ/whatever isn't official, here's a tweet from Nick, one of the Community Team:

"Only the rules team can make official rulings, and they do so via FAQs. If one comes, we will publish it on the 40k FB page."

https://twitter.com/nick_bayton/status/876878396030169088

 Nazrak wrote:
For the benefit of the people claiming the latest FAQ/whatever isn't official, here's a tweet from Nick, one of the Community Team:

"Only the rules team can make official rulings, and they do so via FAQs. If one comes, we will publish it on the 40k FB page."

https://twitter.com/nick_bayton/status/876878396030169088

I'm not sure what your intent here is, could you be more specific?

What do you mean by "For the benefit of the people claiming the latest FAQ/whatever isn't official, here's a tweet from Nick, one of the Community Team:"


I am going to read this as; Correct, the recent Designers Commentary is not an official FAQ because it was not created by the rules team.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

And yet by your logic before it isn't official because it was only ever on Warhammer Community and not with the other FaQs.
Maybe look to see what I was arguing, rather than jumping in head first and actually proving MY point - being on the Community site does not make something unofficial, unlike what you said earlier.

And something doesn't need to be titled "Official" to be official... or are the 8th Edition rules not official for you because it isn't titled "The Official 8th Edition Rulebook".

Is it an FaQ as typically defined by GW? No, but then GW's officially defined FaQs are a combination of actual FaQ and Errata. The Designer's Commentary is an FaQ by another name, and (what do you know) is full of Questions that have been Answered by the people who officially designed the game to clarify things for people, and it was posted on GW's official community page.

...huh.

It's one thing if this was just an article written by the PR team as you said, but when it's answered by the actual design team and only released by the PR team through an article you have to go through some crazy mental gymnastics to decide that in fact it can't be trusted by the PR team have made mistakes in the past, even though they're not even the ones who made the damn document.

Dude, give up. You don't have a leg to stand on.

Wrath of Magnus was published here:
https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/Errata/Warhammer_40000/Wrath_of_Magnus_EN.pdf

It was official, it was stamped as such, and was hosted in a spot designated for official documentation.

My argument has NEVER changed, the designers commentary is NOT an official document because it was compiled and distributed by the PR people, it does not have the official banner, header, version number and is not hosted in the correct place where official documentation is known to exist for many years.

Here is a clear picture of the two documents in question: Can you see the difference?

It is official.