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.

As the topic states I have been having more and more problems with people who haven't played 6th Edition much and have not read the Official GW Codex updates for their army.
This is a problem not only because sometimes it benefits them greatly when we don't apply the Update to their rules, but when I point out that the stuff has changed I am often called TFG, although i don't see why.
Is there a diplomatic way to get people to read the updates without being TFG or bringing every update printed out with me?
And often these people are the only ones who I can play in my FLGS, so choosing not to play them would often mean no games for me, which I also do not want.

Codex updates as in FAQs?

Yes, but more specifically the Errata and Amendments sections as I have found they have the most impact on rules in the games i have had problems with

Well, informing you opponent about updates to their codex does not make you TFG. Depending on the manner in which you inform them may. Just be polite about it. Ask them if they're aware that there has been an update / FAQ and explain what has changed. You may want to have a print out on hand to show them too.

Tell them where to find them. Print them out yourself if you have to, give them a copy.

Keep copies around and if they arn't using them remind them that its cheating to not use them.

Awesome, thanks for the help

Sure thing. This way they will have no excuse.

We keep a printed copy of each of the FAQs at our club to avoid just such problems.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Tell them where to find them. Print them out yourself if you have to, give them a copy.

Keep copies around and if they arn't using them remind them that its cheating to not use them.

I disagree with an after-effect printing being unused as "cheating." Although I would never stop someone from using a FAQ/Errata in a game, not using an updated thing wouldn't constitute cheating in my eyes.

For example: my girlfriend plays Daemons. We don't have the WD update. It's more of an update than the FAQ/Errata. We don't use the updated rules for Flamers (don't have them). Is she cheating? In my opinion, it's only cheating if you cherry pick your rules, IE: I like this update, but not this one.

 Shrike325 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Tell them where to find them. Print them out yourself if you have to, give them a copy.

Keep copies around and if they arn't using them remind them that its cheating to not use them.

I disagree with an after-effect printing being unused as "cheating." Although I would never stop someone from using a FAQ/Errata in a game, not using an updated thing wouldn't constitute cheating in my eyes.

For example: my girlfriend plays Daemons. We don't have the WD update. It's more of an update than the FAQ/Errata. We don't use the updated rules for Flamers (don't have them). Is she cheating? In my opinion, it's only cheating if you cherry pick your rules, IE: I like this update, but not this one.

I guess it depends. I'd love, for example, to not use any of the FAQ's as they pertain to my Grey Knights. Then my Paladins are still characters, they all get their 4+ Look Out Sir back, and directed shots/strikes. I'd love to ignore the changes to Look Out Sir and Characters in units in general. That would give my army a significant boost (and make Paladins usable again, lol)

I had a rather long debate with someone in my FLGS about the merits of Tyranid Primes, until it was evident that he'd never read the FAQ stating they can't ride in a Spore with a squad.

He then said 'if it's not in the rulebook or codex I ignore it' and stalked off.

 -Loki- wrote:
I had a rather long debate with someone in my FLGS about the merits of Tyranid Primes, until it was evident that he'd never read the FAQ stating they can't ride in a Spore with a squad.

He then said 'if it's not in the rulebook or codex I ignore it' and stalked off.

Wait, what? There are people like this? The way I usually explain it is in reference to video/computer games. The published FAQs are like balance patches that games put out.

I have a printed copy of all the most recent FAQ's in a binder that I put on the table for anyone to use when I play.

It's hard to get people to use the FAQ's and Errata and updates as official because they say right on the GW site that they are basically house rules. So in friendly games sometimes there is no real way to enforce it.

Tournament play is a different story. They have to go by whatever rules the tournament organizer says are being used.

In your case I would point out that the changes you are telling them about are supposed to make the game run properly and not using them can give them significant unfair advantages. Then use some examples you can find of how broken things would be if they were not using the erratas.

Roadkill Zombie wrote:
It's hard to get people to use the FAQ's and Errata and updates as official because they say right on the GW site that they are basically house rules. So in friendly games sometimes there is no real way to enforce it.

It's only the FAQ section that are "house rules", the errata and amendments are mandatory.

Something I just noticed though - they've changed the wording at some point. It now says:

"FAQs, or Frequently Asked Questions are grey areas, points of confusion or places where rules can and have been interpreted in conflicting ways. For each FAQ we provide the answer as determined by the Games Development team; while these are not hard and fast rules text in the same way as Errata, they should be considered the 'official' interpretation."

No longer "house rules", but more towards "official", even though still not "mandatory".

Roadkill Zombie wrote:
I would point out that not using them can give significant unfair advantages. Then use some examples you can find of how broken things would be if they were not using the erratas.

Not to forget significant disadvantages in some cases. GW had to FAQ the Tyranid Mawloc so players actually believe it can deliberately try to deepstrike on top of an enemy unit, for example. Hive Guard got a significant boost in the FAQ too, suddenly ignoring all sorts of cover saves their original text said nothing about.