are FAQs really official?

[HJL]

my problem is this.

 

i dont recall it saying anywhere in the rule book that FAQs are official, this would mean that they are just GW house rules and so are no more enforcable than any other house rules.

 

the problems arose from this situation:

 

i was playing a game as DA and my opponent said i couldnt turbo boost my bikes on the scout move because my codex says that they cant. i said that it looked as though it was just an out dated rule left over from 4th ed and that there was a new faq setting the precedent for bikes turbo boosting. he was adament that i couldnt do it.

 

my arguement is this, the precedent set by GW is that codex rules over rite any other rules. as FAQs are not mentioned anywhere in the rules atall, i shall take them as an anomoly.

 

if codex rules over rite core rules, i cant turbo boost my bikes, but all of my combat squadded units count as scoring units.

 

is this the case or are DA just unreasonably hampered fue to a bone headed refusal by GW to fix the problems?

[Captain Malachi]

The whole point of an FAQ is too clear up rules issues, of course they are official, tournies accept them for a start.

[JamesI]

They are official.

 

The problem here is the FAQ doesn't change the DA codex. DA can't turboboost on a scout move, but another codex with scout bikes could. A FAQ would need to specifically change the DA codex to allow the scout turboboost.

[angronn]

if codex rules over rite core rules, i cant turbo boost my bikes, but all of my combat squadded units count as scoring units.

 

Also note that although the Ravenwing can't turbo-Scout, the DA FAQ has changed our combat squad rules so that only Troops are scoring (until the last man) as well. The only exception is the scoring Land Speeder (which is stated in a different section that hasn't been FAQ'd).

 

EDIT: Typo.

[HJL]

i dont think that tournaments using the FAQs is any more reason for them to be official than any other house rule being used at a tournament.

 

in my experience, FAQs dont clear up rules issues atall, they often just create whole new ones, just like most house rules.

[ShinyRhino]

i dont think that tournaments using the FAQs is any more reason for them to be official than any other house rule being used at a tournament.

 

I believe the tournaments being referred to are GW-sanctioned events, which means the FAQs are GW-sanctioned rule additions/clarifications. Heck, GW writes the things, why would they not be official?

[Captain Malachi]

i dont think that tournaments using the FAQs is any more reason for them to be official than any other house rule being used at a tournament.

 

Well even so that doesn't change the fact that FAQs are official.

 

Edit- And yes I was talking about the official GW tournies.

[Mal]

I cant remember which FAQ/discussion it was in but a spokesperson for GW did state that the codex overides the rule book and the FAQ overides the codex, so from that statement, if the FAQ overides BOTH the codex adn rulebook, it really would make sense for it to be offical.... plus the fact the ONLY place you can get them from is GW, and to top it off the BA FAQ was NOT released seperately from the BA dex, but instead the dex was re-released with the FAQ updates in it.

[HJL]

so is it stupidity or lazyness then that has screwed the DA up so much?

[angronn]

so is it stupidity or lazyness then that has screwed the DA up so much?

 

A little of both, but also a large dose of strictly following a policy that makes sense in a lot of cases - "players have paid for a rulebook/codex, and that rulebook/codex must not be invalidated by constant shifting of rules. Thus FAQs will never shift the basic rules of a printed codex".

 

That's fair enough. I don't want to be cutting and pasting things into my Codex all the time. Nor do I really want to shell out for a v.2 of my Codices. And the little flimsy supplement Codices never really impressed me either. Unfortunately, that means that post Space-Marine-paradigm-shift and Codex-creep, we've lost out. Perhaps the policy needs to be tweaked a little...

 

 

Back on topic:

 

GW released the rulebook. That's official (although it doesn't state so itself, it's self-evident).

GW released the codex. That's official (again, doesn't state so inside it, but self-evident).

GW released the FAQ. Doesn't state so inside it, but I think we can all see the pattern...

 

 

Finally, note the Rule Resolution Flowchart on the website, which indicates that if you can't find the answer in the rulebook, you should consult the errata document.

[maniclurker]

I thought that many of the FAQ's were actually just adopted by GW from over on some other thread. Can't remember which one.

[Hlakir]

Don't forget that they function as errata documents as well... officially fixing typos in the Codices.

[Akar]

I remember this coming up in previous editions of 40k. Just a different perspective that helped me accept all the mix-ups, and despite my disagreements, it's pretty unbiased.

 

The OP is correct in that the rulebook doesn't say (nor does any codex) that an FAQ is official. You won't find it anywhere. So I can see this line of reasoning as I myself used to think this way as well.

 

GW HAS released a method of resolving rules disputes. When it comes to resolving a rule, not covered in any great detail in the BBB or any codex either, it makes sense to use something that is published by our crack supplier, right? Again, while not exactly cannon, it is a good guide to get past the 'book' and into the 'game'. This system, since it is published by GW should take precedence over independant rules resolution (ie. 'Lawyering')

 

This is where the FAQ's fit in to the global picture. Follow the steps and you will eventually hit the FAQ'n wall. I believe that the resolution chart even covers ways to climb over the FAQ's. So I will agree with the OP that the FAQ's are not the end of the line. Most players tend to stop here, but it doesn't necessarily have to. I'll need to read the chart again.

 

USE DISCRETION: Im not by any means suggesting that you start lawyering the resolution chart by any means. I've never seen a player do it. It would only REALLY be an issue in either Tournament play, or LGS play where there are no 'House' rules in effect.

 

Then all it really comes down to is who you are playing, which is the REAL problem with with the DA FAQ. We are more restricted by what our opponent may or may not let us get away with, than anything. Talk with your opponents, you might find that he feels the DA's got worked over as well.

 

Just my 2 bitz worth, hope it helps.

[Praeger]

Actually previous rulebooks DID mention FAQ's.

 

Im not sure if the new rulebook does, will have to double check, but if it does it will be in the front few pages in a very easily overlooked place - if i remeber right the last rulebook had it right after the copyright information.

[angronn]

Sorry for the threadomancy, but I feel the new preface to the Shrine of Knowledge sheds further light on this issue.

[Br.Pat]

Well I have seen official GW FAQs that have littled dotted-line boxes round the seperate questions. The purpose of this was to photocopy the page, cut the boxes out and stick them in the rulebook.

 

I guess this pretty much clarifies that FAQs are official.

 

 

Oh and.... to clarify... Can scout bikers turbo-boost as their scout rule? :S

[angronn]

Well, it's interesting that GW stated that errata are hard and fast, and FAQs are "soft", in their new preface. They almost went as far as saying they were just "guidelines", and you didn't have to play by them. Madness.

 

Turbo-scouting: Scout bikes can. Deffkoptas can. Ravenwing can't.

[Legatus]

Can scout bikers turbo-boost as their scout rule?

Units using the "scouts" rule can perform a "normal move" before the beginning of the game, so no, they cannot turbo-boost. A 24" move that grants a cover save and prevents them from moving through difficult terrain, shooting or assaulting definitely is not a "normal move".

[WarpSpawn]

Can scout bikers turbo-boost as their scout rule?

Units using the "scouts" rule can perform a "normal move" before the beginning of the game, so no, they cannot turbo-boost. A 24" move that grants a cover save and prevents them from moving through difficult terrain, shooting or assaulting definitely is not a "normal move".

 

If you are playing by GW's house rules (aka FAQ's), yes. they can turbo as their scout move.

[Legatus]

Right, I see. Which for me means that they are indeed intended to be able to turbo-boost. Though I would not have thought a potential FaQ to rule that way.

[angronn]

Right, I see. Which for me means that they are indeed intended to be able to turbo-boost. Though I would not have thought a potential FaQ to rule that way.

 

Fortunately, if you don't like the FAQ, you're entitled to just D6 for it every time. :o

[WarpSpawn]

True, but you are probably better off agreeing to use the lot or not at all, highlighting any exceptions before the game, rather than just picking and choosing as the situation arises.

[angronn]

True, but you are probably better off agreeing to use the lot or not at all, highlighting any exceptions before the game, rather than just picking and choosing as the situation arises.

 

I agree. I just think it's daft that GW gave that as an option. FAQs from the designers are supposed to resolve odd rules issues, not give "suggested" workarounds.

[Massawyrm]

People keep using the word official, and that's bit of a misnomer here. EVERYTHING GW writes is official. Material that is not official is homebrew codexes like the BoLS material. I could tell you that of course you can turboboost - but only if you paint your bikes a nice burgundy. That's not official.

 

The problem with this chain of overriding material is that GW stresses the philosophy that the game is what you make it. There are no required rules as much as there are suggestions. You can change whatever you want. As silly as it sounds, that's their stand. So your job when you sit down with an opponent is to agree upon the rules of the game. That's the nice part about having a gaming club or involved game store - they have their established house rules and one can always defer to how THEY do it.

 

The DEFAULT setting is of course the rulebook, superseded by the codex, superseded by the FAQ. But it is always up to you, when establishing a relationship with a new opponent, to ensure this is agreed upon as well. If you both think a rule is silly, you can do away with it. Ignore it completely. So can a tournament. But sadly the short answer to this long thread is: yes and no.