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.

I want to get peoples opinions on this, because, this is clearly a point of great debate.
There are several points in the FAQs that reminder or example text or example texts references something incorrectly whilst attempting to answer an unrelated question.

for example

Q: With regards the Cadre Fireblade’s Volley Fire ability, what
exactly is meant by ‘may fire an extra shot’?
A: It means the player can make one more hit roll for
each model. Note that for a model with a pulse rifle (a
Rapid Fire weapon) this means that it would make two
hit rolls unless the target is within half range, in which
case it would make three hit rolls.

from the data sheet the pulse rifle only makes one hit roll when it is not half range due to being Rapid Fire 1 and the ability in question popping only at half range. Should this be considered an intentional change to RAW ?

another example.

Q: Can a unit that Advances or Falls Back embark within a transport? What about if the transport has moved before – can a unit still embark inside?
A: Yes, yes and yes (remember though that a transport cannot both embark and disembark units in the same turn).

the reminder text here is telling us to remember (and therefor) refer back to a rule that does not exist. (yet a similar one from the BRB does with a vastly different effect on gameplay).

both of these FAQs are attempting to provide guidelines on questions, yet in their reminder/example text they are referring incorrectly to other things unrelated to what the question is trying to address.

What do people think, should we treat example and reminder text as official modifications to RAW or should we treat them as non-rule binding extra text. In almost every other major game I have played, (i am a big board game fanatic and in my LGS/play groups am usually the rule guru [i have a small obsession with rule documentation and tend to try and learn every games rules in excruciating detail]) ranging from Epic games like twilight imperium and Mega Civilzation, mid games like FFs GOT and Scythe, RPGs like DnD, WoD and Kult, card games like MTG and VTES and even small games like unstable unicorns, In all of these other games reminder and example texts usually appear as italics and are expected to be ignored for RAW and official rulings when conflicting with other rules text. I think there is a precedence from other games and game design philosophy to do the same here as well.

anyways,
I am curious to see what people think.

This is more a general topic than a YMDC

This is more a general topic than a YMDC

I would disagree,
this is literally a rules question,
its a bit meta yes, because its a rules question on determining the rules, but a rules question none the less.

If GW is going to continue to use FAQs instead of errata to fix their rules, the only way the game can function is if we take FAQs as outranking what the rules say, even if the FAQ is incorrect ruleswise. Otherwise I can use Codex: Daemons stratagems on Mortarian and Magnus with impunity.

If GW is going to continue to use FAQs instead of errata to fix their rules, the only way the game can function is if we take FAQs as outranking what the rules say, even if the FAQ is incorrect ruleswise. Otherwise I can use Codex: Daemons stratagems on Mortarian and Magnus with impunity.

This isn't a question of whether or not we should take the FAQs as outranking what the rules say. We should definitely take them as they should. This is a question about whether or not reminder/example text is the designers giving us official rules or are they unrelated/binding to RAW.
The FAQ presents Question, then Answer.
The answer should be considered to override the rule. The reminder/example text is not a part of the answer, it is included to help us understand the answer better. However, reminder/example text is not expanding on the question at hand... it is not the answer but it is "extra."

I completely agree that any answer in the FAQ should override and outrank older rules. However, I am hesitant to think that incorrectly referenced "help" text is intended to be and should be considered binding RAW. Most other games make this clear by the use of italics but even ones that don't, I have never played another game that took that approach that "help" text in FAQs and other sources override rules and there is nowhere in any GW materials that suggest that they intend the FAQ example/reminder text ("help" text) to be included as binding RAW. What is made clear, is that the answers to the questions should be binding RAW, but no where does it say that we should also do that with the extras ("help" text).

Type40 wrote:

If GW is going to continue to use FAQs instead of errata to fix their rules, the only way the game can function is if we take FAQs as outranking what the rules say, even if the FAQ is incorrect ruleswise. Otherwise I can use Codex: Daemons stratagems on Mortarian and Magnus with impunity.

This isn't a question of whether or not we should take the FAQs as outranking what the rules say. We should definitely take them as they should. This is a question about whether or not reminder/example text is the designers giving us official rules or are they unrelated/binding to RAW.
The FAQ presents Question, then Answer.
The answer should be considered to override the rule. The reminder/example text is not a part of the answer, it is included to help us understand the answer better. However, reminder/example text is not expanding on the question at hand... it is not the answer but it is "extra."

I completely agree that any answer in the FAQ should override and outrank older rules. However, I am hesitant to think that incorrectly referenced "help" text is intended to be and should be considered binding RAW. Most other games make this clear by the use of italics but even ones that don't, I have never played another game that took that approach that "help" text in FAQs and other sources override rules and there is nowhere in any GW materials that suggest that they intend the FAQ example/reminder text ("help" text) to be included as binding RAW. What is made clear, is that the answers to the questions should be binding RAW, but not the extras.

The FAQ literally instructs you to make two shots at max range, therefore you do, rules be damned. If people dislike it they can complain to GW (for all the good that will do) or make up house rules.

Common sense and fair play be damned too, I guess.

The FAQ literally instructs you to make two shots at max range, therefore you do, rules be damned.

Where does it instruct me to do that ?

I see a question about how the Cadre Fireblade's Volly Fire ability works.
Then the FAQ instructs me on how it works. (I accept this answer as RAW)
and then I see example text.
Example text that refers to something incorrectly, or maybe it is referring to something out of context, or maybe something else,,,
It is a bit ridiculous to interpret this extra "help" text as a way to override raw when whether or not the ability gives you an extra attack at max range isn't even addressed or changed in the question ? and if we take it as that, does that imply that RAW is saying all weapons that Cadre Fireblade's Volly Fire effects get an extra shot at max range ? or only the pulse rifle ? or perhaps in the context of this example text the unit had some other buff giving it an extra attack that we don't know about ? [rhetorical questions]

The point is, the FAQs propose Questions,
Then they propose Answers.
The answers are what we are concerned about for overriding RAW not GWs attempts at explaining the answer (failed, contradictory, correct, or otherwise).

Those explanations are "extra" to even what rules the designers are trying to overwrite.

 Type40 wrote:
The FAQ presents Question, then Answer.
The answer should be considered to override the rule. The reminder/example text is not a part of the answer, it is included to help us understand the answer better.

Not quite correct.

The reminder/example text is a part of the answer as much as the direct answer itself.

Q: Certain abilities and Stratagems are used ‘before the battle’. When specifically is this?
A: The game begins when players start the Deployment step of a mission – all abilities and Stratagems that are used ‘before the battle’ must be used before then.

Remember that if both players have ‘before the battle’ abilities they wish to use, and the rules themselves do not explicitly say in which order they should be resolved, the players should roll off – the winner decides in what order they are resolved.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/warhammer_40000_rulebook_en-3.pdf

in this example the rules do not give direction on how to resolve the situation where both players have ‘before the battle’ abilities they wish to use, they answer that as well as the original question.

One of the many quirks of trying to resolve the RAW.

All rules to a game are by common consent. If two people can't agree on the rules of the game, the game hangs in an unresolvable state.

FAQ / Erratta are GW's way of modifying previous incarnations of rules, ideally making instances of disagreement fewer.

RAW arguments ignore anyone's concept of RAI, as the "Intention" is unknowable. Sometimes that intention is spelled out in the FAQ's, sometimes not.

Which brings us to the possibility that changing the rule to effectively +1 shot regardless of range was intentional, as the explanation says that's what you now do.

The argument against presupposes that this was UNintentional. However, RAW, we can't argue the intentionality of it. The new RAW is clear. The rule now allows +1 shot, regardless of range.

On the other hand, assuming all RAW are also RAI leads to many, MANY unplayable game states. As BCB has pointed out in a few threads, we have quite a few conflicting FAQs and rule sources. If we say "GW intended all of this" then we can't say which one takes precedence over the other. There's a point at which we, the players, have to use common sense when interpreting what GW puts out. We have to come to logical conclusions, instead of taking everything at face value. For example, the Pulse Rifle example. Is it more likely that GW made a mistake on writing their example? Or is it more likely that they didn't make a mistake there, but they forgot to update the Tau Codex entry for Volley Fire to include that it works outside of half range? In either case, you have to make a concession in regards to RAW.

I find any instance in an FAQ where they say "remember X" and my response is "what the heck are they talking about" to be an error in the FAQ and not a change to the rules.

In most cases, you easily see the reminder text to show by example how to apply the rule being referenced. In other cases, directly contradicts the rules in question and often their answer also. I see no reason to view such an contradiction as a change in the rule since no-one who doesn't reference that FAQ answer will ever get to the same result.

In order to be a change to the rules it would have to actually say it overrides what the current rules say, rather than obliquely refer to something in an example, IMO. Does anyone have the rules text for the Cadre Fireblade? I'm sure it specifically mentions half range in the rule itself, and that hasn't been explicitly changed so at best we're left with a situation where the reminder text references something that doesn't exist, leaving us without a clear way to proceed if we just follow RAW.

In these situations, where a reminder conflicts with the referenced rule, I'd go with the referenced rule as correct and not assume a reminder overrides a written rule.

What would be even better is if GW went back through the FAQs to correct these kind of mistakes a week or so after they were released. There were a lot of updates in this round of FAQs and it's quite likely they'll throw up a few unforeseen problems. That's fine as long as you have a plan in place to deal with those problems. What's not fine is publishing a bunch of FAQs, having various errors noted, then doing nothing.

I view the FAQ answers as RAW, but the examples as RAI.

Often a RAW argument centres around the fact that intent is impossible to know, I see the examples as the rules writers’ attempt to demonstrate RAI. Now this doesn’t mean that they necessarily do this well. Part of the problem is the way they use FAQ and errata. Errata should be there to correct mistakes such as typographical errors such as punctuation, spelling and grammar. FAQs should be there to clarify rules interactions and interpretation when there is ambiguity and/or confusion.

When it comes to actually changing rules, then they should label it not as FAQ or errata, but as a replacement or new rule, noting specifically which rule it replaces.

Regarding the specific example in the OP, I don’t think it changes the rule that volley fire applies only at half range. The FAQ answer which is RAW states that when applying the volley fire ability, then you fire one more shot at a given range than you otherwise would.

This is followed by an example to demonstrate RAI - when applying volley fire to a rapid fire 1 weapon at half range, fire 3 shots. If applying volley fire to a rapid fire 1 weapon at more than half range, fire 2 shots. It doesn’t say that volley fire applies at more than half range, but it does allow for the possibility of a special rule/exception that allows you to use volley fire outside if half range. This could be from a special ability, a stratagem or any other special circumstance. The fact that no such circumstance currently exists is irrelevant. It simply means that if a new stratagem is introduced at a later date that allows a unit to apply the volley fire rule when outside of half range, that this eventuality is covered by the example.

Now, I’m not saying that this is good rule writing, or that it is clear, but that’s how I’d interpret and apply this specific example.

I cannot even fathom how the yes votes are winning on this question.

Are people that hungry for advantage in this game when its obviously (to anyone with any kind of brain) not supposed to work that way?


If this piss's you off that I say it, then its probably because im right.

Type40 wrote:
The FAQ presents Question, then Answer.
The answer should be considered to override the rule. The reminder/example text is not a part of the answer, it is included to help us understand the answer better.


Not quite correct.

The reminder/example text is a part of the answer as much as the direct answer itself.

Q: Certain abilities and Stratagems are used ‘before the battle’. When specifically is this?
A: The game begins when players start the Deployment step of a mission – all abilities and Stratagems that are used ‘before the battle’ must be used before then.

Remember that if both players have ‘before the battle’ abilities they wish to use, and the rules themselves do not explicitly say in which order they should be resolved, the players should roll off – the winner decides in what order they are resolved.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/warhammer_40000_rulebook_en-3.pdf

in this example the rules do not give direction on how to resolve the situation where both players have ‘before the battle’ abilities they wish to use, they answer that as well as the original question.

Actually it is exactly correct,

In this case the reminder text just happens to be referring to another rule correctly.

While playing Warhammer 40,000,you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time–normally‘at the start of the Movement phase ’or‘ before the battle begins’.When this happens during the game,the player whose turn it is chooses the order. If these things occur before or after the game, or at the start or end of a battle round,the players roll off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved.
pg 178 BRB

The reminder text here is being used to help us understand the FAQ Answer. It is not adding to the answer, it is not attempting to change something unrelated, and it is not a part of what the designers are trying to address. It simply refers correctly to another rule in existence. You can ignore the reminder text completely and it would still be true.

Again, in game design, and in every other game I have ever played, you do NOT use reminder/example text from an FAQ or otherwise as a method for overwriting RAW. Based on that precedence and the fact that GW nowhere tells us to do this... why would we do this ?

these types of changes don't even follow their format.
FAQ
Format =
1. Question : --------
2. Answer: overwrites raw
3. (reminder/example text)reminder/example text

or

ERRATA
1. Page : ------
2. Change to text: overwrites raw
3. (reminder/example text)reminder/example text

The only thing clear here is that GW wants you to use the step 2 of their format to overwrite RAW. Why would they expect anything else. And if they do, where does it say that they are breaking there own format to introduce new/changes to rules. I don't know a single educated game designer who would break there own format for rules writing intentionally. FAQs arn't a new format that GW just came up with and its not like its a very hard format to follow.

So, without a clear pointer from GW saying, "btw all, we change the rules, out of format, in our "help" text, and you should check there for existing changes and changes in the future" I don't think its even logical to think that those instances are anything more then mistakes, or poorly written examples. This is why most other games put the "help" text in italics. in game design, this is common to signify that something is not rules text but rather an explanation or reference.

What is RAW clearly are the answers. but I am not going to go past the answers to the text trying to explain the answer to me and be like ,,, hmmm this explination is telling me to remember something that doesn't exists... I am going do some inception now and pretend it does ok now it is RAW. I am also not going to hmmm ..... this explination is is explaining something to me that is impossible as they describe based on the rest of the rules, and not related to the question it is explaining.... guess I got to play it that way with out any way of parsing out why, how or if it should happen.

Rules are rules. Explanations and reminders are not. I once tried to explain the concept of evolution to someone with toothpicks,,,, did I expect them to think that little tiny pieces of wood procreate, mutate, and naturally select ? [rhetorical question]

 Eihnlazer wrote:
I cannot even fathom how the yes votes are winning on this question.

Are people that hungry for advantage in this game when its obviously (to anyone with any kind of brain) not supposed to work that way?

If this piss's you off that I say it, then its probably because im right.

The yes votes are winning because the reminder/example text is a part of the answer as much as the direct answer itself.

They are literally a part of the FaQ document, and are official rules.

Yes is winning if you ignore that No/Maybe combined have more votes.

The yes votes are winning because the reminder/example text is a part of the answer as much as the direct answer itself.

They are literally a part of the FaQ document, and are official rules.

Yes they are part of the FaQ document, but where does anything say that the reminder/example text is a proposition or assertions of a rule ?
Again, referring to other games and game design philosophy we can see it is not and until GW decides to specifically say they aren't using conventional standards I don't see any logical reason to believe that they are proposing new rules in this way.

again, the faq proposes new rules in the format of Question then Answer, and errata. That is the obvious format for proposition or assertions of rules and rule changes. Examples and Reminders are not the designers trying to introducing new rules. it baffles me that people could possibly think otherwise. These designers might do some silly things, but they are smart enough to introduce rules in their official formatting.

The entirety of an FAQ entry should be considered, and it should be correctly worded. But if the FAQ example is obviously BS you don't take it as gospel. Same with the rules itself.

As usual, extreme positions are not the solution.

if we really want get THAT syntax specific with the FAQs and have every word including the reminder/example text count as RAW then the following logic apply.


if an faqs reminder/example text is to considered a new rule then we can call that piece of text Rule B,
RuleB states :
"rembember rule A "
Me : Great, rule B is : try and recall rule A ,,,,
so, I will follow the rules and attempt to recall rule A but when I can't recall rule A because rule A doesn't exist, i will officially have finished my duties of following this "new rule" proposed by the FAQ reminder text by simply trying to remember it. Then I will continue the game as though Rule A didnt exist and I will use rule B to try and recall rule A and fail at that, when ever appropriate.

and with the example texts, we have no way of knowing what other conditions(effects and abilities) applied to the models their examples, so I can only assume the that the conditions I should use are the ones in the game I am playing as outlined in all of the other official rulings (like data sheets, the BrB, and direct rule statements[like the answers or errata] in the FaQs)

but that's only if we really want to look at it from this "every word including example/reminder text counts as RAW" perspective.

GW rules are not tight enough to apply any rigorous logic to consistently. Context and common sense are key, take every rule and FAQ on its own merits and reach a reasonable conclusion.

If you can't, discuss with the opponent. If you disagree, roll off.

That's all there is really.

Having thought about it, I've come to conclusion that most of this contention seems to be because we have this view that FAQs are rules. And, technically, they aren't. They're clarification, and possibly an explanation of RAI, but they aren't actually rules. Unlike Errata, they don't officially change the wording of a rule, either by adding, replacing, or removing text. So, if the wording of an FAQ contradicts a passage in the rulebook, codex, or an Errata, and you want to go "by RAW", then you have to ignore the contradictory FAQ. Doesn't mean you have to ignore them all. Just that the actual rules and errata trump the FAQs when it comes to RAW. Because, again, FAQs aren't actually rules.

FAQ and Errata both are rules. They carry the same weight as the rules. Trying to artificially separate them is futile.

FAQs don't over-ride the rules - they are clarifications of the rules. An expanded explanation of how the rule is supposed to work.

Where they get it wrong and the FAQ winds up directly contradicting rules text from elsewhere, it's up to the players to determine how to deal with that, just as it would be if the conflicting pieces of text were both in the rulebook to begin with.

 Type40 wrote:

The yes votes are winning because the reminder/example text is a part of the answer as much as the direct answer itself.

They are literally a part of the FaQ document, and are official rules.

Yes they are part of the FaQ document, but where does anything say that the reminder/example text is a proposition or assertions of a rule ?

Right here:

WARHAMMER 40,000 RULEBOOK Official Update Version 1.4 Page 1, left column, 1st graph 2nd-4th sentences FAQ wrote: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.

(Emphasis mine).

Where it literally says "These documents collect amendments to the rules" the reminder/example text is a part of "These documents" and as such are "amendments to the rules".

That's just stretching. Litterally reaching out for the moon and expecting to grab it with your hand.

 insaniak wrote:
FAQs don't over-ride the rules - they are clarifications of the rules. An expanded explanation of how the rule is supposed to work.

Where they get it wrong and the FAQ winds up directly contradicting rules text from elsewhere, it's up to the players to determine how to deal with that, just as it would be if the conflicting pieces of text were both in the rulebook to begin with.

A properly written ruleset doesn't need to rely on players determining "how to deal with that".

 Eihnlazer wrote:
That's just stretching. Litterally reaching out for the moon and expecting to grab it with your hand.

An actual rules quote is not enough for you then?

Well there will be no convincing you if an actual rules quote can not do it, so yea. Good game I guess?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
FAQs don't over-ride the rules - they are clarifications of the rules. An expanded explanation of how the rule is supposed to work.

Where they get it wrong and the FAQ winds up directly contradicting rules text from elsewhere, it's up to the players to determine how to deal with that, just as it would be if the conflicting pieces of text were both in the rulebook to begin with.

A properly written ruleset doesn't need to rely on players determining "how to deal with that".

We get it. You hate GW's technical writers.

This saw is old.