Tau Empire Codex 2013 | Army Builder Program
Dark Angels Codex 2013
Chaos Daemons Codex 2013
Chaos Space Marines Codex 2012

Warhammer 40k Forum Tau Online

 

Warhammer 40K Forum

Err...huh? GW says "Ignore FAQs".
Closed Thread
Old 22 Nov 2008, 09:33   #1 (permalink)
Shas'O
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Missouri
Posts: 8,838
Send a message via AIM to Sidstyler Send a message via MSN to Sidstyler
Default Err...huh? GW says "Ignore FAQs".

Here.

Quote:
What's the difference between Errata and FAQs?

As it is rather obvious from their name, these documents include two separate elements - the Errata and the FAQs. In case you were wondering, 'Errata' is a posh (Latin!) way to say 'Errors', and 'FAQs' stands for 'Frequently Asked Questions'. It is important to understand the distinction between the two, because they are very different.

The Errata are simply a list of the corrections we plan to make on the next reprint of the book to fix the mistakes that managed to slip into the text (no matter how many times you check a book, there are always some!). These are obviously errors, for example a model that has WS3 in the book's bestiary and WS4 in the book's army list. The Errata would say something like: 'Page 96. Replace WS3 with WS4 in the profile of the so-and-so model'.

The Errata have the same level of 'authority' as the main rules, as they effectively modify the published material. They are 'hard' material. It is a good idea to read them and be aware of their existence, but luckily there are very few of them for each book.

The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'. They are, of course, useful when you play a pick-up game against someone you don't know, or at tournaments (i.e. when you don't have a set of common 'house rules' with the other player). However, if you disagree with some answers and prefer to change them in your games and make your own house rules with your friends, that's fine. In fact we encourage you to shape the game around your needs and your taste. We firmly believe that wargaming is about two (or more!) people creating a gaming experience they are both going to enjoy. In other words, you might prefer to skip the FAQs altogether and instead always apply the good old 'roll a dice' rule whenever you meet a problematic situation.

- Games Development, November 2008
...wow, how...disappointing.

A couple of good posts from Dakka on the subject:

Quote:
What I also like, aside from GW's wonderful ability to answer a question without giving us a definitive, is how the FAQ's are there to cover grey areas where there is no right or wrong.

No.

That's half true.

There are certainly grey areas, we've seen enough of them, but the other half of the FAQ's stem from badly or lazily written rules that require explanation and clarification. In those instances there most certainly is a right and wrong answer.


But overall, just like with the 'do whatever you want' non-answer in the Dark Angel FAQ, this little blurb of GW's is their 'get out of writing good rules free' card, as no only do they now not have to bother with FAQs (they're not official anyway... or are they? They won't tell us, that's for sure...), but they can wash their hands of them whenever they want to, leaving them blameless because it's 'up to the player'.

In other words, they're putting the onus of sorting out their rules on the player. Shouldn't the onus for good rules be on the idiots writing them?
Quote:
It's meaningless to say people don't have to use the FAQs if they don't want to. People don't have to use the main rulebook if they don't want to.

The FAQs either solve problems that have arisen from mistakes or ambiguity in the main rulebook, or they don't. If they don't they are a waste of everyone's time.
Thoughts? All I'm thinking right now is "worthless". :-\
__________________

Warhams is serious business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redbeard
Knowing the rules is not WAAC. Bringing tough lists is not WAAC. Acting within the scope of the rules is not WAAC.
Sidstyler is offline  
Old 22 Nov 2008, 10:42   #2 (permalink)
Shas'La
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: London, UK
Posts: 349
Default Re: Err...huh? GW says "Ignore FAQs".

<pirate voice>

arrrr, they're more what you call guidlines...

</pirate voice>

It would be nice if they managed to get out a full set of rules without mistakes or grey areas, but its not really economic for them to do so. (since they'd be constantly working on them, updating and tweaking them) we'd have to relearn them all the time and each rulebook reprint would be very different to the previous one.

So.. having guidline FAQ's on the rules is proably the best approach they can use. IMO.
__________________
New Tau Project Log!
Jonagon is offline  
Old 22 Nov 2008, 11:10   #3 (permalink)
Shas'Ui
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 542
Default Re: Err...huh? GW says "Ignore FAQs".

Eh. That seems pretty typical of their idea of the game. At least they have made the effort to release faqs more recently.

I hope it's not long before they realise, or accept, that the majority of players don't do things like that...
Chimerical is offline  
Old 22 Nov 2008, 11:29   #4 (permalink)
Shas'O
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Missouri
Posts: 8,838
Send a message via AIM to Sidstyler Send a message via MSN to Sidstyler
Default Re: Err...huh? GW says "Ignore FAQs".

Quote:
arrrr, they're more what you call guidlines...
*bang* The FAQ is the law...

Anyway, I just would have liked it better if they drop this whole "Do what you want, we don't care" attitude and acted like competent, professional game developers who actually give a damn about their work. The beer and pretzels thing is just fine if you're playing a game and having fun, but this is their livelihood, I'd expect the developers of all people to take their work a little more seriously, but as it is now the fans care more about their game than they do.
__________________

Warhams is serious business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redbeard
Knowing the rules is not WAAC. Bringing tough lists is not WAAC. Acting within the scope of the rules is not WAAC.
Sidstyler is offline  
Old 22 Nov 2008, 13:12   #5 (permalink)
Shas'O
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 7,663
Default Re: Err...huh? GW says "Ignore FAQs".

In line with my comments about the most recent Dark Angels FAQ and now this, GW is quickly moving to Warhammer 40,000 being that adult equivalent of children's soccer (football) here in the US - there is no winner, no loser, it's simply about the touchy-feely of who enjoyed the game...and everyone gets a trophy!

FAQ's as guidelines is rubbish. FAQ's for every other game in the known universe are canon! Whatever, though, if GW wants to dilute their game by overemphasising the non-competitive nature of the hobby, let them. I still plan on using the FAQ's as God's inerrant and inspired word of truth. :P
Farseer_Emlyn is offline  
Old 22 Nov 2008, 14:18   #6 (permalink)
Shas'La
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: London, ON
Posts: 413
Default Re: Err...huh? GW says "Ignore FAQs".

As is always said, in every thread about GW's crappy writing ability, there's no excuse for this. Magic the Gathering is a flawlessly worded game, with certainly a lot more content than GW has to deal with even if they were to include all of the specialist games, LOTR, and Fantasy combined in. The reasoning can't even be considered that Magic is "simpler".

If GW simply had three guys with the job of taking rules questions, and then writing same-day erratas, there would be no problems with the rules system. Since there are three, they can vote definitively on which way the errata is written, and since there are three, it can't cut deeply into GW's profits (most likely increasing them by reducing the amount of gamers that get sick of this kind of stuff).
Ninja Ork is offline  
Old 22 Nov 2008, 14:56   #7 (permalink)
Shas'O
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Brampton Ont. Canada
Posts: 6,441
Default Re: Err...huh? GW says "Ignore FAQs".

Oh great... So now people have the chance to dig up the arguments of the past by simply saying they don't agree with the FAQ. Now yes, I suspect a considerable number of reasonable people will likely continue to use the FAQs answers as they are "from the horse's mouth" so to speak (although the credits to dakka of late have diluted this somewhat). However, an enjoyable game is rarely ruined by a courteous, reasonable opponent. For the somewhat more dreadsock worthy people out there, this change could potentially serve as more ammunition for rules lawyering.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch: the noob
Is it just me, or does Fish Ead really love to use a Dreadsock?...
I'd hate to get on his bad side... >
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiwaz
Fishy has just proved to me that Canadians CAN be scary...
Fish Ead is offline  
Old 22 Nov 2008, 14:58   #8 (permalink)
Zen
Ethereal
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 12,937
Send a message via MSN to Zen
Default Re: Err...huh? GW says "Ignore FAQs".

:EXTREMEHEADDESK:
Zen is offline  
Old 22 Nov 2008, 15:22   #9 (permalink)
Shas'La
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Ont, Canada
Posts: 307
Default Re: Err...huh? GW says "Ignore FAQs".

It's answer's like this that make people think which is more important to GW: Money or gameplay.

I have a friend who basically believes that they don't spend the time actually required to proof read because it's wasted time when those proof readers could be out doing other things. If the product gets held up then they can't cash in on it as fast. Mind you, given the amount of time it seems to take to get any kind of new codex out there, I wouldn't say they're really rushing things anyway so why not take the time to read it again.
__________________
We are all but a weapon in the right hand of the Emperor.

But you don't want to know what he does with his left...
Twiggen is offline  
Old 22 Nov 2008, 15:27   #10 (permalink)
Shas'O
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 7,663
Default Re: Err...huh? GW says "Ignore FAQs".

I'm thinking that maybe my 5 year old is an undercover GW playtester. :shifty: His "version" of War40K is pretty much the way I see it going according to recent GW statements. It pretty much works like this: you put all of the terrain out on the board and deploy your forces. Then you proceed to move models around, narrating your story, making shooting sounds and knocking your enemies over when you decide that they are dead. You can come up with special rules on the fly if you need them. Occassionally, two exceptional heroes will get into close combat with eachother. This is resolved by each player holding the base of their model on the table and rotating the model back and forth so that its arms "swing" at the enemy. The first model to get knocked out of its player's fingers, obviously, loses. :

An alternative rumor is that, after deploying, you assign a score to the dice (1-3, 4-6) to each side. Roll a d6 to find out the result of the battle. Space Marines can modify this number by one. Necrons can as well. Dark Eldar automatically confer to their opponent a +1 modification in their opponent's favor. Once the result of the battle has been assigned, you may then play out the battle using the above rules. :P
Farseer_Emlyn is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Which deploys last? "Word in Your Ear", "Grand Illusion", or "Macharian Cross" davidgr33n The Inquisition 4 27 Dec 2007 05:52
Which deploys last? "Word in Your Ear", "Grand Illusion", or "Macharian Cross" davidgr33n Imperial Guard 5 24 Dec 2007 20:38
"The Jack of all trades Shas'El" / "Why it can make sense to DS MP toting HQ's" israfel420 Tau 7 27 Sep 2007 07:38
"scratch" built Leman Russ in the style of German "Mouse" tank (pictures) saffo Conversion 22 19 May 2006 16:22
Tau, KTeam Fluff (Draft) "The Shas'M'yen Incident"~ Ray "Raedien" Devine Devin Fluff/Stories 8 12 Aug 2005 07:52