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.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 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".

lol way to ignore half the sentence

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 and yours).

If you have a box of apples AND oranges , everything in the box isn't just apples.

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

Which doesn't change the answer.

The question asked was about the role of FAQs, not the proficiency of the writers.

The simple fact is that 40k has always had rules interactions and issues that were left up to the players to resolve as they saw fit. After 30 years of this, it seems fairly clear that this is not going to change. If you don't find that to be acceptable, you always have the option of not playing the game.


Oh... Wait...

I did not ignore anything...

The FAQ's are rules. therefore the reminder/example text are rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Spoiler:

 Type40 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 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".

lol way to ignore half the sentence

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 and yours).

If you have a box of apples AND oranges , everything in the box isn't just apples.

I did not ignore anything...

The FAQ's are rules. therefore the reminder/example text are rules.

Again,

if I say I have a box of apples AND oranges, does this imply that every object in my box is both an apple and an orange at the same time. Or does this imply that I have box that has apples in it, as well as oranges.

"These documents collect amendments to the rules" AND " present our responses to players’ frequently asked questions."
Are you trying to tell me this "AND" doesn't mean they have a variety of both?
are you saying the intention of the statement is to mean :
"These documents collect amendments to the rules with use of our responses to players' frequently asked questions." ?

seriously,,, talk about people not taking things as Rules As Written. Its literally what it says and you are willfully ignoring the other half of the sentence and interpreting this rule in a RAI way whilst claiming RAW.

Nowhere in your quoted message does it say FAQs are rules. In fact, the only thing is says about FAQs is that they are "responses". Errata are amendments to the rules, as they literally amend the rules ("replace this with this", "add this", "remove this", etc). FAQs are, as many people have stated, responses designed to clarify the intent of a rule. In others words, FAQs are RAI. If you use them as such (and you should in 99% of cases), then good on ya. But don't make a false equivalency between FAQs and the rules and claim RAW.

 Type40 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:


I did not ignore anything...

The FAQ's are rules. therefore the reminder/example text are rules.

Again,

if I say I have a box of apples AND oranges, does this imply that every object in my box is both an apple and an orange at the same time. Or does this imply that I have box that has apples in it, as well as oranges.

"These documents collect amendments to the rules" AND " present our responses to players’ frequently asked questions."
Are you trying to tell me this "AND" doesn't mean they have a variety of both?
are you saying the intention of the statement is to mean :
"These documents collect amendments to the rules with use of our responses to players' frequently asked questions." ?

seriously,,, talk about people not taking things as Rules As Written. Its literally what it says and you are willfully ignoring the other half of the sentence and interpreting this rule in a RAI way whilst claiming RAW.

I am not ignoring anything, you are.

The FAQ's are rules, "These documents collect amendments to the rules" AND " present our responses to players’ frequently asked questions." are both a part of the FAQ document and as such are both still rules.

To use your analogy: if I say I have a box of apples AND oranges (and nothing else inside), and I say all the apples AND oranges in this box are fruit, then everything in the box is fruit.

Get it?

 flandarz wrote:
Nowhere in your quoted message does it say FAQs are rules. In fact, the only thing is says about FAQs is that they are "responses".

Incorrect. "These documents collect amendments to the rules and present our responses to players’ frequently asked questions." show that everything in the document is rules.

 flandarz wrote:
Errata are amendments to the rules, as they literally amend the rules ("replace this with this", "add this", "remove this", etc). FAQs are, as many people have stated, responses designed to clarify the intent of a rule. In others words, FAQs are RAI. If you use them as such (and you should in 99% of cases), then good on ya. But don't make a false equivalency between FAQs and the rules and claim RAW.

Errata are amendments to the rules

FAQ's are as well. GW changes rules with FAQ's all the time. This is well known, and something GW has done for a long time.

You're making false equivalencies here. The statement "These documents collect amendments to the rules and present our responses to players’ frequently asked questions." does not say "and all of these are rules." To build on the "apples and oranges" example, the statement is "this box contains apples and oranges" not "this box contains apples and oranges, both of which are fruit". You're adding things to the statement to support your argument, without these things being there.

And I'd like a citation of an FAQ changing rules text. You can't amend rules without changing the rulebook. What "is well known" is not necessarily RAW. I'm not arguing whether or not the FAQs present the rules as GW intends them to be played. I'm saying that until the rulebook is amended, a FAQ does not represent RAW.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:


I did not ignore anything...

The FAQ's are rules. therefore the reminder/example text are rules.

Again,

if I say I have a box of apples AND oranges, does this imply that every object in my box is both an apple and an orange at the same time. Or does this imply that I have box that has apples in it, as well as oranges.

"These documents collect amendments to the rules" AND " present our responses to players’ frequently asked questions."
Are you trying to tell me this "AND" doesn't mean they have a variety of both?
are you saying the intention of the statement is to mean :
"These documents collect amendments to the rules with use of our responses to players' frequently asked questions." ?

seriously,,, talk about people not taking things as Rules As Written. Its literally what it says and you are willfully ignoring the other half of the sentence and interpreting this rule in a RAI way whilst claiming RAW.

I am not ignoring anything, you are.

The FAQ's are rules, "These documents collect amendments to the rules" AND " present our responses to players’ frequently asked questions." are both a part of the FAQ document and as such are both still rules.

To use your analogy: if I say I have a box of apples AND oranges (and nothing else inside), and I say all the apples AND oranges in this box are fruit, then everything in the box is fruit.

Get it?

 flandarz wrote:
Nowhere in your quoted message does it say FAQs are rules. In fact, the only thing is says about FAQs is that they are "responses".

Incorrect. "These documents collect amendments to the rules and present our responses to players’ frequently asked questions." show that everything in the document is rules.

 flandarz wrote:
Errata are amendments to the rules, as they literally amend the rules ("replace this with this", "add this", "remove this", etc). FAQs are, as many people have stated, responses designed to clarify the intent of a rule. In others words, FAQs are RAI. If you use them as such (and you should in 99% of cases), then good on ya. But don't make a false equivalency between FAQs and the rules and claim RAW.

Errata are amendments to the rules

FAQ's are as well. GW changes rules with FAQ's all the time. This is well known, and something GW has done for a long time.

wow, you really are deconstructing that sentence to make it mean what ever you want.

To use your analogy: if I say I have a box of apples AND oranges (and nothing else inside), and I say all the apples AND oranges in this box are fruit, then everything in the box is fruit.

Does it say that ?
It doesn't say "These documents collect amendments to the rules and present our responses to players’ frequently asked questions and errata {aka the amendments to the rules}."
it doesn't say "these documents collect amendments to the rules in the format of responses to players frequently asked questions and errata."
it doesn't say "all of these documents are frequently asked questions and errata/amendments to the rules" = "all the apples AND oranges in this box are fruit"

It DOES SAY

"These documents" (what we are referring to(AKA the fruit)) "collect" (verb, used to say what the document is doing with something or what it is) "amendments to the rules" [the object in the document (aka the apples)] " and " [a word used to insinuate a listing ] "present" (second verb about what the document is doing with something or what it is) "our responses to players’ frequently asked questions [a second object being added to the document (aka the oranges)]"

this syntax reads as follows. These fruit are a collection of apples and a collection of oranges. = Object ... verb .... noun ... and ... verb ..... noun = the sentence we are discussing.

This is line for line syntax, if you don't like that and don't want to look at it that way then its not RAW, instead you are doing an interpretation of RAI .
try it for your self, just replace the nouns and verbs it becomes obvious. You can use any noun ,, I tried it with farm animals and a barn,,, gave the same results.

you can't just look at something, claim it says something it doesn't and then then try and tell us its everyone else who is not following it the way it was written.

 flandarz wrote:
You're making false equivalencies here. The statement "These documents collect amendments to the rules and present our responses to players’ frequently asked questions." does not say "and all of these are rules."

That is exactly what it means...

To build on the "apples and oranges" example, the statement is "this box contains apples and oranges" not "this box contains apples and oranges, both of which are fruit". You're adding things to the statement to support your argument, without these things being there.

Incorrect.

The FAQ's are rules. everything in the FAQ's are rules. Straight from GW.

And I'd like a citation of an FAQ changing rules text. You can't amend rules without changing the rulebook. What "is well known" is not necessarily RAW. I'm not arguing whether or not the FAQs present the rules as GW intends them to be played. I'm saying that until the rulebook is amended, a FAQ does not represent RAW.

FAQ's change rules all the time, but sure Ill provide some examples.

Q: Can a dice roll ever be modified to less than 1?
A: No. If, after all modifiers have been applied, a dice roll would be less than 1, count that result as a 1.

Q: What happens if a unit that has become split up during battle cannot re-establish unit coherency the next time it moves?
A: In this case the unit cannot move.

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.

Q: If a rule modifies a model’s Strength characteristic, and that model is equipped with a melee weapon that also has a modifier (e.g. ‘x2’), could you explain the order in which the modifiers are applied to the characteristics and the weapon’s Strength?
A: First you must determine the model’s current Strength characteristic. To do so apply all modifiers to it that multiply or divide the value, then apply any that add or subtract to it. Having done this, you then modify this value as described by the weapon’s Strength characteristic.

All of these are rules changes, and these are just from the "DESIGNER'S COMMENTARY" FAQ. https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/warhammer_40000_designers_commentary_en-1.pdf

None of those are rule changes. Those are all rule clarifications. All of those FAQs cleared up ambiguity in existing rules. They did not add new rules, change existing rules, or remove rules. Try again, please, because right now all you're doing is proving that FAQs are rule clarifications and not rules in and of themselves.

Honestly flanmdarz,

Some people just wont understand this. he presented a bunch of rules clarifications and called them rules changes.

he ignored the fact that his interpretation of that sentence was completely off of what it said.

and now he is justifying his stance by saying

Your point against my point is wrong because I will repeat my point again XD.

Argument "The FAQ's are rules. everything in the FAQ's are rules."
"see I have this evidence that says so"

Counter point "you are reading that evidence wrong thats not what that says "
"here is what it actually says, and why, also here is how you are adding to it to make your point sound correct"

Argument response "Incorrect.

The FAQ's are rules. everything in the FAQ's are rules. Straight from GW"

You can't show or explain anything to someone dedicated to maintaining their point of view with circular logic.

In a proper debate, you aren’t trying to convince your opponent.

You try to convince the audience. Belief matters more than truth, and perception holds greater influence than fact.

But in this case, the FAQ’s are rules that are written by GW. They are written rules. Therefore, one can assert their validity in a Rules As Written debate.

I can dream though...

It ain't even like I'm disagreeing that FAQs are important. They're ways to see how GW intends for the rules to me interpreted, and are vital in understanding rules that are vague. They are literally RAI, which is a real good thing. I'll take RAI over RAW any day. But claiming they're RAW is just... wrong. And claiming that, when they make a mistake, it takes precedent over the rules is even worse.

@Flandarz
I completely agree.

 flandarz wrote:
None of those are rule changes.

False.
They are changes. Before this FAQ:
"Q: Can a dice roll ever be modified to less than 1?
A: No. If, after all modifiers have been applied, a dice roll would be less than 1, count that result as a 1."

You could modify a die roll lower than one.

Therefore it is a rules change, not a clarification, as it literally changed the rule.

Ok. If that's true, let's see the previous rule that said "modifiers can reduce a dice roll to less than 1". I would honestly love to see it. Then, your claim that it changed an existing rule would be 100% factual. If you cannot provide the previous rule, then it was a clarification to the rule which stated the "intent" of the "rule" was that rolls could not go below 1.

 flandarz wrote:
Ok. If that's true, let's see the previous rule that said "modifiers can reduce a dice roll to less than 1". I would honestly love to see it. Then, your claim that it changed an existing rule would be 100% factual. If you cannot provide the previous rule, then it was a clarification to the rule which stated the "intent" of the "rule" was that rolls could not go below 1.

The base rules allowed for it.

The allow for negative modifiers and did not restrict it to anything.

Therefore the fact that the base rules allowed for negative modifiers to stack, allowed for results lower than 1. The FaQ changed that and limited it to 1 as the lowest.

So, rather than changing a rule, they clarified it, yes? The rule didn't allow or disallow for modifiers to lower a dice roll below 1. It was vague, and so GW released an FAQ to state the intent that a dice roll could not be lowered below 1. Again, this isn't RAW. It *is* RAI, and I agree that going by RAI is better than going by RAW. Just saying that you shouldn't conflate the two, if you're making an argument about RAW vs RAI.

 flandarz wrote:
So, rather than changing a rule, they clarified it, yes? The rule didn't allow or disallow for modifiers to lower a dice roll below 1. It was vague, and so GW released an FAQ to state the intent that a dice roll could not be lowered below 1. Again, this isn't RAW. It *is* RAI, and I agree that going by RAI is better than going by RAW. Just saying that you shouldn't conflate the two, if you're making an argument about RAW vs RAI.

No, they changed it. it worked one way, and now it works differently. that is a change.


This is another change:

Q: If a rule modifies a model’s Strength characteristic, and that model is equipped with a melee weapon that also has a modifier (e.g. ‘x2’), could you explain the order in which the modifiers are applied to the characteristics and the weapon’s Strength?
A: First you must determine the model’s current Strength characteristic. To do so apply all modifiers to it that multiply or divide the value, then apply any that add or subtract to it. Having done this, you then modify this value as described by the weapon’s Strength characteristic.

100% change, not clarification.

But in this case, the FAQ’s are rules that are written by GW. They are written rules. Therefore, one can assert their validity in a Rules As Written debate.

This is really quite a stance of RAI in itself.
FAQs themselves and their reminder/example text aren't stated be anything more then clarifications. Until GW officially makes a statement about how they have decided to use FAQs and reminder/example text within as way to introduce new rules. There is no precedence in the game design comunity and within the context of other games for them to approach it that way.
I think it is clear that FAQ answers provide us with good insight on how the game is intended to be played and thus can be regarded quite highly in terms of RAW. However trying to say that mistakes made in reminder/example text automatically inserts new RAW rules into the game is a bit ridiculous, especially when these "new rules" arn;t even related to the question at hand. I have never seen a game that encourages their players to operate in this way, and I still havn't seen where in this game it tells us to take such approach.

Errata = RAW
Question + Answer = a RAW method to replace what designers thought we would have inferred ourselves from RAI. . no introduction of new rules, rather an introduction to how we are playing existing rules wrong.
Reminder/example text = text included to help explain the answer of the FAQ . No introduction to rules or methods, rather reminders of important existing or similar rules and examples to illustrate the answer of the particular question

This is the format GW is expecting us to use as a rules document. Why are so many people convinced that it would work this way ? this isn't knew to game design, or any other game that uses errata and FaQs .

I tell you "get a plate if you will make food and we have bread meat and cheese." then

If you ask me "how do you make a sandwich" FAQ
and I say "you use two pieces of bread and put meat and cheese in the middle"
"for example, you take two pieces of bread and some meat and cheese in the middle" "Remember to get a plate"
this would be a decent piece of FAQ

However if we get something like this instead

I tell you "get a plate if you will make food and we have bread meat and cheese." then

If you ask me "how do you make a sandwich" FAQ
and I say "you use two pieces of bread and put meat and cheese in the middle"
"for example, you take two pieces of lettuce and some meat and sauce in the middle" "Remember to get a bowl"

I may have gotten my reminder text and example text wrong. but the RAW method, the Answer, I was trying to convey is not wrong. I don't expect you to use a bowl or lettuce and sauce for the sandwich, those ingredients dont exists niether does the bowl.
I don't expect you to change my rules because i gave you a hypothetical example that differs from the full instructions ... i may be a gakky teacher but that doesn't mean I expect you to just take my incorrect extra information as true and a rule.

Anyways, the point is, until GW actually says they are doing things out of conventional standards, and unlike any other game I have ever seen, I think it is pretty resonable to assume the FAQs work like any other games FAQ where what maters for rules changes are the actual Errata's and the actual answers to the questions. Not random magical new rules born from within reminder/example text that was trying to be used to explain the answer it is attached to.

Alas, no statement like that exists. I don't even think I have seen someone present something that shows the FAQs are to be considered new rules themselves. (i think to some extent the FAQs are,,, they are like new RAW methods for existing rules) I have seen things that say it is Official rules clarifications yes, but not new rules. How did everyone get to this point of believing this ? Its so strange because I have never seen a community react like this in in this kind of situation. . . except for MTG about 15 years ago, they introduced an official rules errata that said example/reminder text was not to have an impact on game play. but even then, that was like a couple of TFGs and not what seems like a split with half of the entire community .




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 flandarz wrote:
So, rather than changing a rule, they clarified it, yes? The rule didn't allow or disallow for modifiers to lower a dice roll below 1. It was vague, and so GW released an FAQ to state the intent that a dice roll could not be lowered below 1. Again, this isn't RAW. It *is* RAI, and I agree that going by RAI is better than going by RAW. Just saying that you shouldn't conflate the two, if you're making an argument about RAW vs RAI.

No, they changed it. it worked one way, and now it works differently. that is a change.


This is another change:

Q: If a rule modifies a model’s Strength characteristic, and that model is equipped with a melee weapon that also has a modifier (e.g. ‘x2’), could you explain the order in which the modifiers are applied to the characteristics and the weapon’s Strength?
A: First you must determine the model’s current Strength characteristic. To do so apply all modifiers to it that multiply or divide the value, then apply any that add or subtract to it. Having done this, you then modify this value as described by the weapon’s Strength characteristic.

100% change, not clarification.

I think what you are failing to realize here is that you are in fact showing clarifications. for it ti be a rules CHANGE and not a clarification. you need to show some rules text that existed before and then show an FAQ the specifically changed what it used to say in the text. Not something that just changes the way or specifies the way we previously inferred we should have done something.

 Type40 wrote:
I think what you are failing to realize here is that you are in fact showing clarifications.

No, those are changes. They worked differently prior to the FAQ and were changed in the FAQ. Thus a change.

for it ti be a rules CHANGE and not a clarification. you need to show some rules text that existed before and then show an FAQ the specifically changed what it used to say in the text. Not something that just changes the way or specifies the way we previously inferred we should have done something.

The change being that you can go below 1 before the FAQ, and after the FAQ you can not. Pretty drastic change.


This would be an example of a clarification:

Q: If a model flees from an Adeptus Astartes unit, can an Apothecary use its narthecium to return a model to the unit?
A: No, the narthecium can only be used to return slain models to a unit.

Here is another one that changed rules, as different rules stack, but the FAQ says they do not:

Q: Are the +1 Strength boosts from the Blood Chalice and Red Grail abilities cumulative, for a total of +2 Strength?
A: No. It’s only +1 Strength, even if the unit is within range of both these abilities.

Regarding negative modifiers allowing a roll to be modified below 1:

Before the FAQ, if I went by the RAW and had a -1 modifier applied to an Overcharged Plasma shot, and rolled a 1, I would modify that to a “0” and not suffer the consequences of an overheat. Only a “natural 2” would be modified to a 1, proc’ing the Overheat damage.

After the FAQ, a roll of “natural 1 or 2” results in a “modified 1” proc’ing the Overheat damage.

This is not a clarification, this is a demonstrable change in the game mechanics.

Again, this is for the audience.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Regarding negative modifiers allowing a roll to be modified below 1:

Before the FAQ, if I went by the RAW and had a -1 modifier applied to an Overcharged Plasma shot, and rolled a 1, I would modify that to a “0” and not suffer the consequences of an overheat. Only a “natural 2” would be modified to a 1, proc’ing the Overheat damage.

After the FAQ, a roll of “natural 1 or 2” results in a “modified 1” proc’ing the Overheat damage.

This is not a clarification, this is a demonstrable change in the game mechanics.

Again, this is for the audience.

Yes, this is 100% correct.

Before the FAQ, if I went by the RAW and had a -1 modifier applied to an Overcharged Plasma shot, and rolled a 1, I would modify that to a “0” and not suffer the consequences of an overheat.

Type40 & Flandarz, you can see this is an FAQ that changes rules right and not just a clarification?

Because gw is notorious for being feth ups (its a common known fact that they screw up all the time with everything they do) I would say ignore it. In the case of the first FAQ, its pretty clear the rules writer either didnt know about that specific rule only working at half range, or he simply forgot because he doesnt play/ do the rules for Tau.

So obviously we ignore it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
Regarding negative modifiers allowing a roll to be modified below 1:

Before the FAQ, if I went by the RAW and had a -1 modifier applied to an Overcharged Plasma shot, and rolled a 1, I would modify that to a “0” and not suffer the consequences of an overheat. Only a “natural 2” would be modified to a 1, proc’ing the Overheat damage.

After the FAQ, a roll of “natural 1 or 2” results in a “modified 1” proc’ing the Overheat damage.

This is not a clarification, this is a demonstrable change in the game mechanics.

Again, this is for the audience.

Yes, this is 100% correct.

Before the FAQ, if I went by the RAW and had a -1 modifier applied to an Overcharged Plasma shot, and rolled a 1, I would modify that to a “0” and not suffer the consequences of an overheat.

Type40 & Flandarz, you can see this is an FAQ that changes rules right and not just a clarification?

The difference is that was the first time that question was asked so it was just a clarification. For something like the order of adding or multiplying strength due to weapons, you would GW would Errata it instead of FAQing it because GW have already said in multiple different FAQs that you apply the modifier to the strength characteristic first, and then the modifier from the model's weapon.
Since thia FAQ randomly changed it, and since Im sure we can all see how little the rules team (or any team for that matter) comminicates with each other, It just looks like the responder was using simple BEDMAS/ order of operations to determine how those rules work with each other.

So I guess RAW means the rules have changed, but intuition says the screwed up when writing . Its up to the players to decide weather they want to follow the wording of the rules, or the contradictory FAQs for the rules.

None of this should even be a problem, but GWs world-famous incompetence is here to stay. Forever


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, if its not in magenta, its not a rules change, which means FAQs that are contradictory are nothing but "wrong answers"

 DeathReaper wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
Regarding negative modifiers allowing a roll to be modified below 1:

Before the FAQ, if I went by the RAW and had a -1 modifier applied to an Overcharged Plasma shot, and rolled a 1, I would modify that to a “0” and not suffer the consequences of an overheat. Only a “natural 2” would be modified to a 1, proc’ing the Overheat damage.

After the FAQ, a roll of “natural 1 or 2” results in a “modified 1” proc’ing the Overheat damage.

This is not a clarification, this is a demonstrable change in the game mechanics.

Again, this is for the audience.

Yes, this is 100% correct.

Before the FAQ, if I went by the RAW and had a -1 modifier applied to an Overcharged Plasma shot, and rolled a 1, I would modify that to a “0” and not suffer the consequences of an overheat.

Type40 & Flandarz, you can see this is an FAQ that changes rules right and not just a clarification?

to be honest, its splitting hairs a bit,
But a rules change, changes existing rules text. (example A is now B)
A clarification adds information that did not previously exist to an piece of existing, and unchanged, rules text. without actually changing the text. (A + B means C)
Both can potentially change how we play the game and how we approach the mechanics of the game.
But they are different things.

However,
What's more important here is that
Reminder/Example text is neither of those things.
This text is informal text used to help explain the answer or errata. Its not a formal/intentional inclusion of RaW. it is a pedagogical tool (which GW often fails to use correctly by making mistakes).

The formatting is
Errata : follows their rules syntax and is formal
Question : a question
Answer to question : follows their rules syntax and is formal
Reminder/example text: does not follow their rules syntax and is informal.

the answer part and the errata is your new RaW method for dealing with something in game.
A new rule that is "introduced" in reminder text is clearly not supposed to be there. It is a failed attempt at an explanation.
A new rule should follow RaW and informal reminder/example text being used for pedagogical/explanatory purposes does not format into a succinct rule.
GW knows its own format, GW isn't THAAATTT stupid that they would introduce rules informally outside of this format. Do they make mistakes in their examples/refrences ? yes, but do i think they are intentionally breaking their clearly defined format to introduce something new to us? Absolutely not.
Again FAQs arn't new the the gaming industry and again this type of formatting isn't that complicated. I believe they understand how they intended to present information to us and errata and FaQ follow a formatting. Why would they break their own formatting ? and with informal text that doesn't follow their own rules syntax to boot ? GW has a clear way of presenting new information to us. Erratta, and question + answer. Informally written explanation text attached to that is not somewhere to introduce new rules. They have errata, and question+answer to do that. They have given us thier format, and it is illogical for us to assume they would present mechanics and new rules in any other way. informal text added to that format is not intentional RaW as its not part of their formatting for presenting new RAW. I have seen a lot of games in my day, and I have never seen one where informally written reminder/example text are considered RaW or an intentional change to the rules, whether correct, incorrect, contradictory or something else. If GW is going against conventional industry standards, or even their own defined formating AKA an FAQ , then I'd like to see where they are saying they are doing this or where they say we should assume that informal explanations within their format are an appropriate place to find new mechanics and rules. It is completely unreasonable to think GW would be intentionally add new mechanics and rules embeded into an unrelated question using informal text. So it becomes clear, that when they have done this, it is a refrences mistake, not some attempt at presenting a new rule in a completely convoluted informal way. Especially when they have a format already in place to clarify or add information formally, why would we assume they are intentionally doing it otherwise ?

BTW many games have gone as far as specifically ruling that example/reminder text is not RAW. There is precedence for GW to release an official stance on this... maybe they will, but until then, the only logical approach is to go by what we have seen in the past by other games in the industry and to follow GWs own presented formatting. Not to assume an informal explanation tacked on to their formatting is considered anything more then a failed attempt at an explanation.

It's a clarification. not a rule change.

Change implies that the text of the original rule is different, while a clarification changes the interpretation of the ruling by giving a statement by the rule maker.

A lot of these are just clarifications by the rules team to stop people literally trying to cheat the system by explaining loopholes in the rules (case is point, the - modifiers not making plasma explode)

an FAQ is only there to clarify, because it is a Frequently asked question, a.k.a someone asking the person who made the rules how i should play this rule.

it is not an Errata, which is actually changing the rule itself.

There is a reason these are called Errata's and FAQ's. Not Errata's.

Of course some things do slip through because we are all human after all. Can't fault them, but if you can see that something that is clarifying a rule is referring to something that doesn't exist, then you should know to ignore that part because human error is really common

GW doesn't care about your definitions of what an errata is and what an FAQ answer is.

They've consistently mixed the two things up. If I can modify a tohit to 7 or to 0, "clarifying" that you can't go below 1 as a result is clearly changing the rules by which the game is played, even if it doesn't change the written rules in the book. If they'd simply clarified that results still remain on the 1-6 range of the dice you could argue that that was the intent all along, but only putting a limit to one end? That's cleary something you couldn't derive from the written core rules. Why would 7+ then still be allowed?

nekooni wrote:
GW doesn't care about your definitions of what an errata is and what an FAQ answer is.

They've consistently mixed the two things up. If I can modify a tohit to 7 or to 0, "clarifying" that you can't go below 1 as a result is clearly changing the rules by which the game is played, even if it doesn't change the written rules in the book. If they'd simply clarified that results still remain on the 1-6 range of the dice you could argue that that was the intent all along, but only putting a limit to one end? That's cleary something you couldn't derive from the written core rules. Why would 7+ then still be allowed?

Again, this irelevant, to understanding that GW is not intentionally embeding new mechanics, methods, rules, or unrelated clarifications (or what ever you want to call it) into informal out of synxtax reminder/example text that is tacked on to a formal answer to something unrelated. Especially when considering the "changes " we are talking about are not directly related to or directly answering the presented questions. Rather these "changes" come in the form of informal explinatory writing. This out of their own formating, it is ilogical to think this is what the designers are doing (or trying to do).

 Type40 wrote:

Again, this irelevant, to understanding that GW is not intentionally embeding new mechanics, methods, rules, or unrelated clarifications (or what ever you want to call it) into informal out of synxtax reminder/example text that is tacked on to a formal answer to something unrelated. Especially when considering the "changes " we are talking about are unrelated to the presented questions. This out of their own formating, it is ilogical to think this is what the designers are doing (or trying to do).

Absolutely. I'm just saying that you can't claim FAQ answers DON'T change the rules just because they're not marked as errata.
In some cases they do, mostly when it's about what was asked - such as the tohit thing. In other cases they don't, such as providing an example where a gun gets an extra shot out of nowhere.
One is an intentional rule change, the other isn't. Which is why I voted for option 3 on the poll.

123ply wrote:
The difference is that was the first time that question was asked so it was just a clarification.

No, it is not a clarification, because the rules allows for things to get modified below 1, it was most definitely a change since there is nothing in the rules that sets the minimum number to 1, nothing even hints at it. So 100% a change and 100% not a clarification.

For something like the order of adding or multiplying strength due to weapons, you would GW would Errata it instead of FAQing it because GW have already said in multiple different FAQs that you apply the modifier to the strength characteristic first, and then the modifier from the model's weapon.

Yea, but in the base rules they say to multiply then add, in the FAQ's they say add then multiply. so that is 100% a rules change.

More proof that GW use FAQ to change rules.

Since thia FAQ randomly changed it, and since Im sure we can all see how little the rules team (or any team for that matter) comminicates with each other, It just looks like the responder was using simple BEDMAS/ order of operations to determine how those rules work with each other.

So I guess RAW means the rules have changed, but intuition says the screwed up when writing . Its up to the players to decide weather they want to follow the wording of the rules, or the contradictory FAQs for the rules.

None of this should even be a problem, but GWs world-famous incompetence is here to stay. Forever

Also, if its not in magenta, its not a rules change, which means FAQs that are contradictory are nothing but "wrong answers"

Magenta is only for recent changes...

AKA the first time a FAQ or errata gets added they update the version and add the Magenta FAQ/Errata. So if an FAQ is in version 1.1 as a magenta addition, when Version 1.2 comes out it will no longer be magenta, but it will still be a rules change if it was when Version 1.1 dropped...