new GW 40k 5th edition Rules FAQ

[JMichael]

It's up!
Some of the clarifications I like.
You may officially now deploy units in non-dedicated transports.
Exploding while moving flat out=unit destroyed.

Looks like the codex FAQ's are still the same.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1490286a_FAQ_40Krulebook_version1_1.pdf

[BuFFo]

You may officially now deploy units in non-dedicated transports.

If it isn't an Errata, it isn't official.

Last paragraph in the link - http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=1000018&pIndex=2&aId=3400019

Just making sure people unaware of this (i.e. the entire internet it seems) are aware.

Don't get me wrong, I have never come across this in 'real life' ever. People deployed things inside of Transports during deployment all the time, like Heavy Support Landraiders. But hey, whatever it takes to shut up people on the internet, right?

Most of the new house rules seem pretty decent. Still reading through them all at the moment.

[Nungunz]

The FAQ specifically states that the rulings in there are official.

Hopefully the main page will be updated soon to avoid the confusion.

[BuFFo]

The FAQ specifically states that the rulings in there are official.

Hopefully the main page will be updated soon to avoid the confusion.

The FAQ itself says no such thing, anywhere.

Second Magenta Paragraph on page one clearly states that only the Errata and Amendments are physical changes to the rule books.

The page you are supposed to visit, and read for instructions as to the meaning behind Erratas and FAQs, before downloading and viewing ANY Erratas or FAQs, is here...

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=1000018&pIndex=2&aId=3400019

GW's own words, for years, on that webpage, clearly states their FAQs are just house rules. There is a difference between a FAQ and an Errata, and GW spells it out as clear as day.

[Nungunz]

"Each update is split into three sections: Errata,
Amendments, and ‘Frequently Asked Questions’. The
Errata corrects any mistakes in the book, while the
Amendments bring the book up to date with the latest
version of the rules. The Frequently Asked Questions (or
‘FAQ’) section answers commonly asked questions about
the rules. Although you can mark corrections directly in
your army book, this is by no means necessary – just keep
a copy of the update with your army book."

Seems pretty clear-cut to me.

[BuFFo]

"Each update is split into three sections: Errata,
Amendments, and ‘Frequently Asked Questions’. The
Errata corrects any mistakes in the book, while the
Amendments bring the book up to date with the latest
version of the rules. The Frequently Asked Questions (or
‘FAQ’) section answers commonly asked questions about
the rules. Although you can mark corrections directly in
your army book, this is by no means necessary – just keep
a copy of the update with your army book."

Seems pretty clear-cut to me.

Lets see...

Each update is split into three sections: Errata,
Amendments, and ‘Frequently Asked Questions’. The
Errata corrects any mistakes in the book, while the
Amendments bring the book up to date with the latest
version of the rules. The Frequently Asked Questions (or
‘FAQ’) section answers commonly asked questions about
the rules. Although you can mark corrections directly in
your army book, this is by no means necessary – just keep
a copy of the update with your army book."

See the BOLD and UNDERLINE section? This tells you that you physically change the rules in your rule books. There is NO such provision for FAQs.

For the third time.... Because you seem to be missing it...

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=1000018&pIndex=2&aId=3400019

Anyway, I have been in this discussion before online many times. People want to treat the FAQs as a Bible, be my guest.

I can lead you horses to water.... and that is about it.

[Calypso2ts]

Regardless of whether you play by the FAQ's or not, I have to give them credit for answering a lot of the common questions and debates. I for one like that they finally addressed the smoke launchers on transports issue.

[JMichael]

oops. I do know of the opening page paragraph on the FAQ webiste. Thought I did take the part of, answers commonly aksed questions about the rules to possible overwrite that for the Rules FAQ v1.1 specifically.
Perhaps GW will clear this up, perhaps not.

Anyway, most tournaments and clubs do use the FAQ as rulings.
but other than getting into an argument over 'official' or not which is not my point (sorry).

What does everyone think of them?
like, dislike?

[BuFFo]

Regardless of whether you play by the FAQ's or not, I have to give them credit for answering a lot of the common questions and debates. I for one like that they finally addressed the smoke launchers on transports issue.

Oh, please don't get me wrong. I am in no way againstFAQs. Much like you, I am HIGHLY GRATEFUL that GW has decided to update their FAQs for people who choose to play by them, but, there is a difference between a FAQ and an Errata. I have played strangers before who play by using GWs FAQs, and 99% of the time I don't really care, as long as the game is fun for both players!

[Lerra]

It seems like people are missing the most important part of this update:

"The Amendments bring the book up to date with the latest
version of the rules."

This strongly implies that GW plans to release FAQs which update some of the older codices. Woot!

[BuFFo]

It seems like people are missing the most important part of this update:

"The Amendments bring the book up to date with the latest
version of the rules."

This strongly implies that GW plans to release FAQs which update some of the older codices. Woot!

I honestly do not understand Amendments. What is the point, since Erratas accomplish the exact same thing.

[Lerra]

It's probably an internal GW distinction more than anything else. An errata is an error that was fixed - it was always intended to work that way. An Amendment is a rules change to bring a codex up to date with 5th ed.

[BuFFo]

It's probably an internal GW distinction more than anything else. An errata is an error that was fixed - it was always intended to work that way. An Amendment is a rules change to bring a codex up to date with 5th ed.

Yes, but Errata has been used as rule changes as well in GW documents.

Hopefully, there is a reason for doing so. Maybe GW is finally taking the steps to make more official rules changes in the future?

[david5th]

Can't we just have fun and enjoy the hobby.:)

[Defenestratus]

Can't we just have fun and enjoy the hobby.:)


Absolutely not.

Plastic toy soldiers is serious business. :D

One thing that I think is nice is that someone over at GW finally decided to use some elementary document versioning.

[Old_Paladin]

You know you are arguing about the Fantasy definitions of Errata and FAQ?

The 40K section still clearly states that FAQ are "soft material" and GW considers its own house rules.

Fantasy on the other hand, makes their FAQ seem more binding [probably because they want to strengthen the authority of the new 8th edition].

[Duke]

Could you imagine an FAQ coming from the EPL? (English Premier League) saying that anyone can use their hands in a game of football, but it isn't a rule just more of how they like to play it in their backyard unofficial scrimmages? Sometimes I wist GW would make it binding or not even say it... sometimes.

Duke

[jumai]

I always assumed the "disclaimer: unofficial" part in the FAQ to be a polite way of saying "This is about minimizing the obnoxious parts of the game, anyone caught trying to rules lawyer the FAQ can get stuffed."



Could you imagine an FAQ coming from the EPL? (English Premier League) saying that anyone can use their hands in a game of football, but it isn't a rule just more of how they like to play it in their backyard unofficial scrimmages?
Don't they have something like this regarding what the studs on the bottoms of shoes should be made of?