I've never done this before...

[daboarder]

Don't bother with this discussion. I have been "here" so many times online it hurts my head.

When it comes down to it, the majority of 40k customers who post online are just idiots. Plain and simple. They just refuse to read plain, clean and simple English put forth by GW regarding faqs and erratas "just because", yet these same morans will attempt to play as RAW as possible.

FAQs are house rules. Erratas aren't. End of discussion if you are a rational adult, but as you can see from this thread, our hobby lacks in rational adults.

40K stopped being fun many, many years ago when it's player base forgot about the golden rule, and just became a mountain of power gaming, responsibility deflecting cry babies who want to stomp their opponents into the ground when the rules suit them for WAAC gaming, but will cry foul when they lose a model to something they don't understand.

The golden era of playing 40k for fun is long gone. Enjoy the sterile, WAAC environment 40k has become not because of GW's greedy hand, but because of the jaded, selfishness their customers have grown into being over the past decade.

If you want to play fair, play by the Gray Knight erratas, and chuck the FAQ section into the dumpster.

Why should we completely disregard the FAQ's?

Saying they're house rules is a load of BUNK. Even if they are house rules at minimum their amendments and clarifications that the Designers THEMSELVES use when balancing (arguably) and playing the game, as such they hold weight on whether we go one way or another with a rule that is sitting on the fence.

Now I'm all for "modding" the game so to speak with custom scenarios, lists that aren't official (see Eo's harlie list or an chaos army with terminator troops) but these things require discussion and preparation and as such are special occasion's, if I walk over to a gaming table on a Thursday night and you roughly demand that falchions offer +2 attacks because the FAQ is "clearly" bunk then Im either going to want my own ignore the FAQ, or I'm not going to play you. Why? because my free time is precious and I don't want to spend it playing against selfish fools who think their own view is the only one that matters.

[Orminah]

Wow. I'd never even have had issues like this in a game with someone. If it has it in it's name, or has a special rule that just screams daemon, I'd be all for taking a halbred in the ***. While the syphon is a tad wonky as far as the Tau goes, hey, that just means you have to throw down a few submunitions at his unit and rake them with suit fire. Heh.

I mean really. How hard is it just to put down your dice, hug the guy on the other side of the table, and just 4+ it?

It's not like you're playing for your eternal soul. Lol.

[Nabterayl]

You know, the whole "FAQs are rules" vs. "FAQs are house rules" distinction has always seemed false to me. It's not as if the "rules" themselves are binding. If I decide with my opponent that infantry can move 8" and all units fire twice the listed number of shots, that's fine. Even the hardest of rules is only binding because my opponent and I agree. Similarly, the FAQs are as binding, or as persuasive, as my opponent and I agree it is so.

[wkz]

You know, the whole "FAQs are rules" vs. "FAQs are house rules" distinction has always seemed false to me. It's not as if the "rules" themselves are binding. If I decide with my opponent that infantry can move 8" and all units fire twice the listed number of shots, that's fine. Even the hardest of rules is only binding because my opponent and I agree. Similarly, the FAQs are as binding, or as persuasive, as my opponent and I agree it is so.

Basically, I am "nearby" in my stance of GW's FAQ, but not in terms of the rules:

- For rules, there should be only one version and interpretation, and one version only. (but good luck trying to extract the same version/meaning from the rulebook. I've lost faith we can all read it similarly )

This is so that 2 different people from different walks of life can just simply meet each other, shake hands, and immediately jump into a game without ten tons of rules clarification before the game even starts. With the same rules, everyone would have the same framework to have fun (aka: the golden rule)... and even subtle rules differences can be ironed out for the moment, in the name of fun.

- In this regard, "FAQs being as binding as my opponent and I agree" is dangerous: if you and your opponent are random strangers and/or people who don't play together often, the FAQ is similar to the main rulebook: it contains a clarification from the rule's authors themselves, and thus even if they are technically house rules (as written in the FAQ document itself, no less), they should carry a lot of weight on what the actual INTENTION of the wording of certain rules (that's the same "I" in "RAI").

With the FAQ backing up the rules, a certain meaning, more or less similar, can be extracted. Fully ignoring said FAQ will result in local variances which will change the rules significantly in the more ambiguous areas (example: all the FAQ'ed stuff mentioned here for Gray Knights: +1 or +2A? Str10 Monstrous? etc...)

Thus, if you choose to ignore the FAQ completely... ... well... ... I hope you have a lot of people you're playing together regularly and understand what your local gaming group's rules variance are, because a "walk in stranger" is going to have some difficulty understanding your "local dialect" of the rules, and will have a hard time getting broken in before he speaks the same "lingo"

But at the end of the day, Mr "dual-sided hater" Buffo has it correct: The Golden Rule > Everything. Even the BRB and Codexes themselves.

[eldargal]

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.

From [URL="http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=1000018&pIndex=2&aId=340001 9"]here[/URL].

For example, my group is ignoring the bit about Mandrakes being daemons because it has no basis in the rules, fluff not being rules*. But we will be abiding by the bulk of it because we had already houseruled it so.

If you are arguing about rules with someone, you are doing it wrong. We have another rule in my group, if a discussion/argument about a rule during a game lasts more than five minutes you roll a dice to decide it and that is an end to it.

*Everything else on that list has the Daemon special rule, apart from the daemon prince in CSM, but the daemon prince in the daemon codex has it. If GW wanted Mandrakes to be included on that list hey should have a daemon special rule, as the Eldar Avatar does depite its fluff not mentioning daemons at all. I could argue, with as little backing, that the Avatar gets Eternal Warrior because that is what daemons have, the Avatar being a daemon and all.

[daboarder]

not to argue but what is your groups stance on Obliterators?

They are not daemons any more than mandrakes are, hell they don't even get the benefit (T5) that they used to get.

[eldargal]

We take the view that for it to be a daemon from a weapon rules perspective it has to have a/the daemon rule. Yes its silly when it comes to CSM daemon princes and obliterators, but it avoids arguments and makes sense from a rules perspective.

[C.of.N.finity]

We take the view that for it to be a daemon from a weapon rules perspective it has to have a/the daemon rule. Yes its silly when it comes to CSM daemon princes and obliterators, but it avoids arguments and makes sense from a rules perspective.

QFT

Okay falchions-are-only-+1-attack haters: Show me any other non-MC/HQ/Walker entry In. The. Game. that can get 5 force weapon attacks on the charge. (2 base, +1 charge +1 falchion, +1 brotherhood banner). And then throw in the 2+/5++ save, and the fact that they do not have to give up their long ranged weapon. The only thing that comes close is the DE Hekatrix--and that's only S3, T3, and not a force weapon.

You forget that it's 45 points more for all of this, the attacks from the banner aren't nemises so they're normal and there's no reason to take the falchions over the FREE halberds. Assualt termies with a pair of lightning claws get 20 power attacks (or 15, since apperently CCW bought in pairs don't give extra attacks) which are essentially master crafted - our termies with the banner get 20 power attacks, force instead of master crafted, and 4 regular plain attacks for a difference in 45 points. Given the larger amount of single wound models in the game and the proliferation of eternal warrior, I'd say it's very argumenative which unit is better - not the huge land slide you pretend it is.

[Denzark]

Hahaha BuFFO is proving old skool is the new black - we haven't had this for ages. For some people, I suspect a vast majority of players, their fun is enhanced by adherence to what comes out from GW - hence like Star Wars special editions are supposed to be as close to what the director intended as possible, the supposed 'house-rules' of FAQs are what the firm wanted.

Therefore to comply with the BRB most important rule of having fun, people stick to what GW intends even if the idiot company don't lay it down as the word of god.

[C.of.N.finity]

Ok, so I had a thought. It's late and I'm tired, but it's worth saying:

What if this whole falchions thing is prep for 6th edition? Maybe two CCW's won't give an extra attack. Maybe they'll act like having two of the same ranged weapon and allow for rerolls, etc?