Shrine of Knowledge

[BuFFo]

Since many online 40k gamers seem to ignore or miss this completely when searching for FAQs, or don't understand the diffrence between a FAQ and an Errata, here is the section form the Shrine of Knowledge which explains everything about the officialness of Erratas and FAQs.

This also explains the nature of the game, and hopefully will hep some of you understand what 40k is really about.

I'll let this blurb speak for itself...

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

Shrine Of Knowledge Link (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=&categoryId=1000018&section=&pIndex=0&aId=3000006&start=1)



Warhammer 40k is not a competitive game in the least. It is a hobby which includes painting, collecting, converting, and playing with toys in a non serious manner.

Use your imagination along side your gaming partner to make a fun, thrilling game. Its what the basis of the game is designed for you to do.

[Melissia]

GW's house rules > your house rules.

[Bean]

Also, the fact that GW is making rulings which specifically aren't meant to be 'official' rules really just means that their efforts to fix the broken parts of their system are even more woefully inadequate.

FAQs aren't errata. I know. That only underscores the need for actual erratas.

[Chumbalaya]

"Can't be arsed to do it right, so I'll claim moral superiority and bury my head in the sand."

-Love, GW

[Just_Me]

FAQs aren't errata. I know. That only underscores the need for actual erratas.

Please don't take offense at this, but you do realize there ARE actual erratas, don't you? They just happen to combine them in the same document with the FAQs. With labels and a nice little division between the sections.

[Rapture]

I see the GW faqs as official changes to the rules. After all, a rule suggestion made by the people who make the rules is basically the same as a rule in my opinion.

[Aldramelech]

Agreed

[Wolfshade]

I see the GW faqs as official changes to the rules. After all, a rule suggestion made by the people who make the rules is basically the same as a rule in my opinion.

FAQ clarifies the way in which a rule is written, or expands the explanation to cover a situation not originally thought of, but does not change the rule.

Errata on the other hand do change rules, usually through omissions or a change in the way a game concept works

[Bean]

Please don't take offense at this, but you do realize there ARE actual erratas, don't you? They just happen to combine them in the same document with the FAQs. With labels and a nice little division between the sections.

Yes, I do realize that. I probably should have said, "this underscores the need for more actual erratas." It boggles the mind a little to think that there they have decided some issues need to be FAQed, but don't actually require an 'official' errata.

[EmperorEternalXIX]

I normally don't complain about GW at all. But it seems clear to me that, universally, players are less interested in the flexible ruleset than they are an undeniable core ruleset.

I don't think there is much of anything in the game that really NEEDS fixing, just some minor clarifications. In all honesty one e-mail to Jervis could probably solve every real need in about 4 paragraphs.

What I'd like them to do is have some kind of cool web cast where people send in video requests of common rules queries, and the author of the codex can correct things that may be misinterpreted in a video response.

They could call it "Rules as Intended." Heh.

[Rapture]

FAQ clarifies the way in which a rule is written, or expands the explanation to cover a situation not originally thought of, but does not change the rule.

Errata on the other hand do change rules, usually through omissions or a change in the way a game concept works

I think everyone understands that.

However, the title of the amendment makes no difference in my opinion. These FAQ and Eratta are both put out by the original rule makers. That means that the original rule makers support them. Therefore, what is the difference between them and the rules? If you are going to use the rule makers' rules then why wouldn't you use their revisions, whether they are marketed as suggested or official amendments?

[Aldramelech]

I think everyone understands that.

However, the title of the amendment makes no difference in my opinion. These FAQ and Eratta are both put out by the original rule makers. That means that the original rule makers support them. Therefore, what is the difference between them and the rules? If you are going to use the rule makers' rules then why wouldn't you use their revisions, whether they are marketed as suggested or official amendments?

Again, Agreed.

[Katie Drake]

I see the GW faqs as official changes to the rules. After all, a rule suggestion made by the people who make the rules is basically the same as a rule in my opinion.

This. And I bet GW thinks of them that way too and that the only reason they don't just come out and say it is so that people can't completely freak out if something in an FAQ upsets them.

[Nabterayl]

I really don't think that's true. Does anybody doubt that the rule-writers don't approach this game from the standpoint of needing (or even wanting) every instance of 40K to be the same? I think when they say, "These are changed rules, and these are the way we prefer to play the game" they're being completely serious.

When the rule-maker tells me, "This is not a rule, but it's how I prefer to play the game," that is absolutely different from the rule-maker telling me, "This is a rule," in my opinion. Is it highly persuasive? Yes. But different.

[BuFFo]

I see the GW faqs as official changes to the rules. After all, a rule suggestion made by the people who make the rules is basically the same as a rule in my opinion.

Bingo!

The FAQs are not written by GW employees. At least not any since around 2007ish until today. They are written by gamers like you and me. You can actually find who they are in the older faqs from around 2006-2008 at the bottom.

Anyone who thinks the FAQs are written by the codex authors, or anyone on the design team, would be woefully wrong. They gather up information asked and answered by select group of gamers (you can find them on a certain yahoo group) and slap the FAQs together.

Not saying the people who write the faqs are wrong in anyway. I am just saying, that in the end, you are not following FAQs written by the people who you think they are. They are written by, basically, you and me, which in effect, makes GW FAQs no more better/official than Your FAQs.

lol at GW FAQs > Your Faqs. GW FAQs ARE your FAQs.


These FAQ and Eratta are both put out by the original rule makers.

Necron FAQ (http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1180146_Necrons_FAQ_2004-08_5th_Edition.pdf)

I went to a random FAQ and took a peek at at the bottom of it.

It is a Yahoo group of gamers. Not GW employees at all. They have been making FAQs for the better part of 4 years.

Welcome to reality! :) :)

[Rapture]

Bingo!

Welcome to reality! :) :)

Thanks.....

Anyway, there is no specific rule maker, there is only the rule promoter (in this case Games Workshop). Games Workshop makes the rules and if they think that what a yahoo group likes to do will work or that Buck in Washington has come up with the perfect solution to the question of ramming with death rollers then so be it.

What Games Workshop supports is the rules.

[Wolfshade]

I think everyone understands that.

You're previous post suggested that you thought they were the same, or at least that is how I read your comment, it could just be me focusing on semantics:confused:

[Aldramelech]

Thanks.....

Anyway, there is no specific rule maker, there is only the rule promoter (in this case Games Workshop). Games Workshop makes the rules and if they think that what a yahoo group likes to do will work or that Buck in Washington has come up with the perfect solution to the question of ramming with death rollers then so be it.

What Games Workshop supports is the rules.

Agreed. The fact that you endorse something makes it official.

[Melissia]

And yet buffo, in the end...

GW's house rules > your house rules.

You lose :)

[BuFFo]

My favorite is all the people I see in the rules forums stating "Can't wait until GW FAQs it" makes me laugh.

So many people unable to come to conclusions on their own in a game where you are supposed to. Especially since the FAQs are just written by normal gamers anyway.



"I can't wait for GM to come out with a car with a 900 horsepower engine. Now, its true I have one sitting right here, but I don't want to use it until I am told to."

GM states you use whatever engine you want, as long as its fair and fun for everyone.

9 months - 4 years later....

"Oh great! It looks like some random guy is going to give me his 900 horse power engine! Oh joy!"

[Morgrim]

It's helpful having a 'GW sponsored' set of FAQs for things like tournaments, because it allows some standardisation across the board. Some of the things they list are 'either or' situations, so a lean one way is good to address arguments amongst highly competitive players. Considering that this also appears to be the group least likely to allow house rules, it tends to work out for everyone.

Those that need a set of house rules can get a relatively 'neutral' set (ie. lacking the 'the organisers only did it this way because they hate x army), and those that don't need them are probably using their own ones already.

[SeattleDV8]

Bingo!

The FAQs are not written by GW employees. At least not any since around 2007ish until today. They are written by gamers like you and me. You can actually find who they are in the older faqs from around 2006-2008 at the bottom.

Anyone who thinks the FAQs are written by the codex authors, or anyone on the design team, would be woefully wrong. They gather up information asked and answered by select group of gamers (you can find them on a certain yahoo group) and slap the FAQs together.


This is a common misconception, due mainly to the sloppy wording in those older FAQs.(shock, dismay sloppy writing in the GW FAQs...lol)
The FAQs have alway been written by GW employees.
Jon 'Yakface' Regul and his FAQ ruling council were thanked for the questions they bought up, not the answers they gave to those questions. They had no input besides the questions that GW took for the FAQ.
If you wish to see their answers you need only look at the INAT FAQ, (from the Adepticon tourney and now being used in more and more major tourneys)
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/237519.page.
I only wish that GW would do the FAQs like that, completely and in a timely fashion,sigh.