PDA

View Full Version : FAQ Disagreement



Taureus
01-02-2010, 05:38
I have spent a good day and a half trying to sort this out.

But only errata is solid rules-changes. So if one player disagrees with part of a FAQ, how should it be treated in a game?

And yes, I want to continue playing with the group of players I currently do so with, so it's more a question of what compromises should be made if I disagree with parts of any FAQ (Dark Elves for my one friend, Lizardmen for another, and Warriors of Chaos for myself)?

I find myself re-reading the FAQs for DE and WoC, and wondering if certain answers were given for the pure sake of squashing arguments.

King_Pash
01-02-2010, 05:48
I have spent a good day and a half trying to sort this out.

But only errata is solid rules-changes. So if one player disagrees with part of a FAQ, how should it be treated in a game?

And yes, I want to continue playing with the group of players I currently do so with, so it's more a question of what compromises should be made if I disagree with parts of any FAQ (Dark Elves for my one friend, Lizardmen for another, and Warriors of Chaos for myself)?

I find myself re-reading the FAQs for DE and WoC, and wondering if certain answers were given for the pure sake of squashing arguments.

Actually Im glad that someone has brought this up as I have thinking about this for a while now.

I happen to be in the same position as you, with regards to the High Elf FAQ. I have found a contradicting statement in the main book FAQ (that I happen to agree with) to that posted for the High Elves.

So, in regards to your original question, I would agree on a standard interpretation of the rules for your local gaming buddies. Use that when you play but be careful when playing in tournaments as you'd have a tough time contradicting an "official" FAQ, unless you persuaded an opponent to see your view.

I think as long as the opponent agrees to your interpretation of the rules then go for it. If not, err on the side of caution and use it as GW FAQ has it.

nzdarkelf
01-02-2010, 05:55
If you are going to chose to ignore some FAQ's, but follow others - and your opponent is cool about it, then all is good. But expect him to do likewise.

Avian
01-02-2010, 06:17
But only errata is solid rules-changes. So if one player disagrees with part of a FAQ, how should it be treated in a game?
If only one player is in favour of a rules interpretation (presumably one that benefits him) and he has his opponent and the FAQ against him, he will have an uphill struggle unless his powers of persuasion are very good.

That's how.


It seems that some people are of the impression that when the GW site says:

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.
then it ACTUALLY means:

However, if you disagree with some answers and prefer to change them in your games, you and only you have full rights to decide who they should REALLY be played.
That's not really it.


In practice, the clause means that if you want to dismiss an answer, it falls into the same category as asking your opponent: "How about if we count your Dragon as not being able to fly this battle?"

Sure, he MIGHT say yes, but he's not obliged to just because you asked.

willowdark
01-02-2010, 06:24
Ignoring an FAQ is like having the delegation that drafted the U.S. Constitution assembled in a room, asking them questions about the Constitution, then telling them you don't like their answers and you're going to do it differently.

The disclaimer on the GW website is there to soften the backlash against unpopular rulings, a guarding mechanism to reassure that if you play it differently it won't hurt the game mechanics as they designed them, unlike Errata which are there to correct actual mistakes. The FAQ's are answers to questions the design team didn't think of when they wrote the rules, so they're trying to emphasize that they are interpretations.

They're still the closest thing to official you can ask for. And, although some answers are absurd - even unforgivably absurd - most are fairly intuitive, reasonable, honest suggestions for how to work things out.

They're a good resource. Discarding them is as arbitrary as the offensive answers you criticize them for.

Stumpy
01-02-2010, 07:03
The FAQs sometimes give silly answers that are best overruled with logic. Their answer to that chaos armour vs hatred was stupid, and any of their answers of '4+ it' is just lazy.

Paz
01-02-2010, 09:23
Lizardmen FAQ it's most problematic.

Let's see. Slaan got a miscast. By FAQ you roll 2D6 and AFTER you know the resault you transfer it(ignoring 5-6, always). On the other hand FAQ also says u use specific miscast tables. Resault: "Kiss my *face*, only 2,3,4 works on me" says OK player :)

Another cheese one: dropig rocks during charge. What if you charge during magic phase(shadow, beast lore)? and you want to drop rocks which can be used only during movement phase(AB wording)? :)

Avian
01-02-2010, 09:31
Another cheese one: dropig rocks during charge. What if you charge during magic phase(shadow, beast lore)? and you want to drop rocks which can be used only during movement phase(AB wording)? :)
How is that even problematic?

Paz
01-02-2010, 10:57
You drop rocks at units you have passed during movement phase. FAQ says you may drop rocks while charging. Please explain me, how you want to use terredons in magic phase?

Taureus
01-02-2010, 12:41
My point is that as a player, you are not required to use the FAQ (partially or wholly) in casual games.

I could just as easily say, "let's disregard the FAQ entirely, and only use the errata" and wouldn't get into the 'cherry-picking of favorable rulings area'.

I understand that the FAQ is "official" in terms of its usage for tournaments, so that can't really be helped.

But there's nowhere that says "use all of these rules answers, all the time, or else you cannot play the game."

@ Rocks outside of movement: You obviously cannot drop them if you use a spell to allow the unit to charge during the magic phase. Normally charging is accomplished during the movement phase.

Avian
01-02-2010, 13:12
My point is that as a player, you are not required to use the FAQ (partially or wholly) in casual games.
In a casual game there is no referee so the players aren't every required to do anything. They could agree to ignore Errata too, if they like. As long as both players agree they can do anything they like.


I could just as easily say, "let's disregard the FAQ entirely, and only use the errata" and wouldn't get into the 'cherry-picking of favorable rulings area'.
And then your opponent could either say "Yes, let us do that." (in which case you are fine), or he could say "Let's not." (in which case you have a problem).
Imagine, if you like, a war where one side said "Why don't you stop shooting at us and we will continue shooting at you?". Is the other side very likely to agree? No. However, if you asked "Why don't we both stop shooting at each other?" you might have a chance.

I don't feel that you are really getting it. You can suggest anything you like, such as "Let's ignore everything that isn't errata", but you can't FORCE an opponent to agree. The GW website doesn't say that one player can unilaterally decide whether the game will use the FAQ or not, it says that the players can AGREE to something.




You drop rocks at units you have passed during movement phase. FAQ says you may drop rocks while charging. Please explain me, how you want to use terredons in magic phase?
It doesn't say any such thing. It says that you can drop rocks on a turn in which you charge. It doesn't change anything about WHEN you drop rocks (in the Remaining Moves phase) so there is no problem with magic movement.

rtunian
01-02-2010, 13:19
imo, the faq is there to help us understand confusing situations.

if you have a problem with one of their solutions, you need to do a few things. first, you need to take a step back, and try to objectively analyze the situation. don't just ask "are THEY being fair?" but also ask "am I being fair?" approach the situation with as objective an eye as you can muster, and if you cannot be objective, then let those who can be deal with the confusing situations (in other words, if your bias is omnipresent, don't try to "fix the faqs")

when you are looking at the rules of the game, don't be foolish enough to say "well that doesn't make sense. in reality it would be like this..." because reality has nothing to fricking do with the rules of the game. sure, the game and the armies are not perfectly balanced, but balance is still the motivation behind the rules. a rule might be a certain way because to have it accurately reflect reality would make it "overpowered" in certain contexts.

in the end, any game can be played any way as long as both players agree. this is not an open-ended permission to abuse players who agree with anything though... :p if you have the capacity to be fair, then i say play the game however it makes the most sense to you and your partners (but don't be surprised hwen you go to a tourney and find out that you'll be expected to play differently!)

willowdark
01-02-2010, 13:56
At my local store I played a kid for the first time who wanted to play till everything was dead, not the 6 turn VP based game in the rule book. I didn't want to, so we didn't.

In campaigns I've played several games where restrictions or bonuses were placed on or given to my army list that aren't in the rules, but that didn't stop us, because we agreed prior.

Ignoring the FAQ can be fine, even cherry picking it, within the comfort of your regular group. But venture outside your group, either at a tourney or at open gaming with a new comer, or if a disagreement arises in your regular group, and defaulting to the FAQ rulings is the most sensible way to handle it.

gdsora
01-02-2010, 13:58
In practice, the clause means that if you want to dismiss an answer, it falls into the same category as asking your opponent: "How about if we count your Dragon as not being able to fly this battle?"



Since they are not hard rules I can dismiss them all i want.

Esp when some of the things in the faqs contradict stuff in the books, it can be so stupid some times.
Biggest Example I can think of is the empire Faq. When it mentions taking incantations from Tomb kings with the casket of sorcery. It is all fine and dandy until it mentions that not only can you steal them from Liche Priests but you can also steal them from Tomb Kings/Princes.


lol what? The item's rules in question, only effect WIZARDS which Kings/Princes are not. The Faq answer is plain wrong. How could they have made such a large mistake?

Avian
01-02-2010, 14:22
Since they are not hard rules I can dismiss them all i want.
So for example, when you go:
"I dismiss this FAQ ruling!"

And your opponent goes:
"I dismiss your dismissal!"

Then what?

theunwantedbeing
01-02-2010, 14:25
Then what?

Presumably you start hitting each other with the red whippy sticks untill somebody backs down or dies.

gdsora
01-02-2010, 14:27
So for example, when you go:
"I dismiss this FAQ ruling!"

And your opponent goes:
"I dismiss your dismissal!"

Then what?

I usually give them a logical reason to as why.
Like what i did with my earlier example.
Tomb Kings/Princes arent effected like the faq states they are.
Ill ignore that thank you.

And if they dont want to listen, i guess i dont feel the need to play them then

Griefbringer
01-02-2010, 14:39
Presumably you start hitting each other with the red whippy sticks untill somebody backs down or dies.

Wouldn't a more gentlemanly arrangement be to just duel with them until the first blood? :evilgrin:

Corrode
01-02-2010, 14:41
I usually give them a logical reason to as why.
Like what i did with my earlier example.
Tomb Kings/Princes arent effected like the faq states they are.
Ill ignore that thank you.

And if they dont want to listen, i guess i dont feel the need to play them then

Or, when they wrote the book 8 years ago, Tomb Kings/Princes were not intended to be Wizards and were not covered by those rules, but for the purpose of the casket it makes sense to count them too and as such the FAQ answer includes them.

Let's rephrase your situation:

'The casket steals your spell.'
'Tomb Kings aren't Wizards.'
'The FAQ, which as far as I am aware we are using for this game, says it counts anyway.'
'Well that rule doesn't apply to me; you can use the rest of the FAQ but I don't like that answer so we're not using it.'

If anyone comes off as TFG I'd say it's you.

gdsora
01-02-2010, 14:51
Or, when they wrote the book 8 years ago, Tomb Kings/Princes were not intended to be Wizards and were not covered by those rules, but for the purpose of the casket it makes sense to count them too and as such the FAQ answer includes them.

Let's rephrase your situation:

'The casket steals your spell.'
'Tomb Kings aren't Wizards.'
'The FAQ, which as far as I am aware we are using for this game, says it counts anyway.'
'Well that rule doesn't apply to me; you can use the rest of the FAQ but I don't like that answer so we're not using it.'

If anyone comes off as TFG I'd say it's you.

Wait what?
Because I am going by the rules of the game???
They are not wizards, they do not have the wizard rule, They can not take arcane items, they can not be effected by items that effect wizards!

I am sorry if im going by the actual rules from the books themselves...

And having that item effect them sets a huge precedent...
Should other wizard effecting only items now effect them?
Should the Plaque of Dominon Make them stupid?
Should a Slann be able to throw a miscast at them?

Bac5665
01-02-2010, 15:12
Avian wins the thread. Everyone else is wrong. I'd explain why, but Avian did that so well that nothing I say is likely to make a difference.

nzdarkelf
01-02-2010, 19:13
I usually give them a logical reason to as why.
Like what i did with my earlier example.
Tomb Kings/Princes arent effected like the faq states they are.
Ill ignore that thank you.

And if they dont want to listen, i guess i dont feel the need to play them then

LOL.
With the new TK's Army Book due out in the next year or so (going by rumours), this will no doubt be sorted. What are you going to do if you don't like whats in that? Hold out for the next FAQ...?
LOL.

Arion
01-02-2010, 19:54
As a player you are not required by the rules of the game to use the FAQ's that GW puts out. that is correct. but as a player you are required by the rules of sportsmanship to solve any problems with the rules in a sportsmanlike manner. Sometimes, in the absence of a FAQ, this isn't quite as easy. I tend to look at the FAQ's like rulings from judges (in the criminal justice system in the united states). Though their ruling are not exactly hard and fast LAW as they were not made by the legislature and are not in the written code) they are precedent. When arguing rules, you may not lie the rule in the FAQ, and although it is not exactly a hard rule, it is precedent and therefore is the ruling that should be used if you cannot come to an agreeable ruling between the two of you.

gdsora
01-02-2010, 22:22
LOL.
With the new TK's Army Book due out in the next year or so (going by rumours), this will no doubt be sorted. What are you going to do if you don't like whats in that? Hold out for the next FAQ...?
LOL.

Funny enough
I'll play by the rules like i have to.

Do you not understand what the problem is?
My problem is the FAQ says the item can effect TK/TP. The item itself in its own rules only effects Wizards.

As FAQ's are not hard rules, and Army books are, there is no way that you can go with the faq, other then to say that the army book is wrong

decker_cky
01-02-2010, 23:06
GW's rules writing isn't tight enough, even including their FAQs. But the FAQs give people enough to play through most contentious situations. GW FAQs also change the rules lots.

The truth is, it just sounds like you don't like their answer so you won't play with it. Unlike you...the FAQs are an unbiased authority on the rule. By their own proclamation, they aren't the official rules, but they provide a commonality to play the rules with. And in any discussion about the rules, it doesn't make sense to ignore them.

Yes...you can throw a hissy fit and stomp away because someone stole a spell from your tomb king or tomb prince. That's your choice to play the game as you see fit. But you won't get a lot of support at having been right in your views, because stomping away in a hissy fit will have been exactly what you've done.

Ganymede
01-02-2010, 23:22
Funny enough
I'll play by the rules like i have to.

Do you not understand what the problem is?
My problem is the FAQ says the item can effect TK/TP. The item itself in its own rules only effects Wizards.

As FAQ's are not hard rules, and Army books are, there is no way that you can go with the faq, other then to say that the army book is wrong

Your problem is that, outside of some incredible public speaking skills on your part, you are risking a huge retort of "Shenannegins!" with this tact. All your fellow player has to do is go "Bzzzt, wrong!" and you are suddenly in another rules argument.

..If only we had some sort of document that helped with those.

gdsora
01-02-2010, 23:35
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'

Taken from GW's site

The last thing ill say i guess

is how is this a grey area?

decker_cky
01-02-2010, 23:37
In a self prophesizing way. GW releases an FAQ talking about stealing from princes and kings, which makes people interpret the original rule as a grey area, so you look to the FAQ to resolve it.

Valaraukar
01-02-2010, 23:46
Many GW rules are poorly worded so it should be no surprise that something which steals spells was worded with the term 'wizard' which the numpty writing it meant to describe all spell casters and infact even bound spells. This being the case an FAQ was used to clarify that it did indeed also effect casters such as princes and kings, I don't think you'll find many non Tomb King players who disagree with it as they are impartial and removed from the matter at hand.

gdsora
01-02-2010, 23:50
In a self prophesizing way. GW releases an FAQ talking about stealing from princes and kings, which makes people interpret the original rule as a grey area, so you look to the FAQ to resolve it.

sorry, i really should stop.

But there is no way as I can see to interpret the original rule by it self, or even reading the faq as a grey area.
I really don't understand how that can happen:(


Many GW rules are poorly worded so it should be no surprise that something which steals spells was worded with the term 'wizard' which the numpty writing it meant to describe all spell casters and infact even bound spells. This being the case an FAQ was used to clarify that it did indeed also effect casters such as princes and kings, I don't think you'll find many non Tomb King players who disagree with it as they are impartial and removed from the matter at hand.

As for this, there are multiple times i see WIZARD only stuff. I see no reason, this item is any different.
Finally there are multiple times its stated Tk are supposed to be far way from wizards as possible. Hence why *drain magic* (TK Faq) Could not be targeted at TK/TP. The reasoning is..they are not wizards

Maoriboy007
01-02-2010, 23:58
The TK example is a good example of the Genius that is the FAQs.
The VC one has a couple of Gems
Invocation of Nehek works on units in combat due to the example given in the spell description, fine its a sensible answer, but surely it should have been an erratta?
A Vampire with dreadknight can't get off his horse and get on, say, a dragon or Winged abomination.:eyebrows:
Ooookay must be too difficult for a centuries old vampire lord to switch steeds although all and sundry can manage it.
Maybe he just has a "special" relationship with his horse.
But said vampire can sprout wingts and carry said horse around with him :wtf:
One stupid answer deserve the other I suppose, but come on.

Taureus
02-02-2010, 00:44
Well in trying to persuade the DE player that the FAQ is not the final word on a certain pendant, and therefore it should follow the standard rule for ward saves, I was made to feel completely unwelcome to game with the players I had come to be rather good friends with.

So this thread is no longer needed, since disagreeing with these folks means I am too stubborn to be welcome.

@Mod: Close whenever you feel like it, since the original premise of the thread was to determine an avenue to broach this subject. Unfortunately this group has never been one for playing outside what's written in the army books (houserule-type things, like DP with magic items [WHFB] or alternate Ogryn [WH40K]).

I guess it just wasn't meant to be.

Spirit
02-02-2010, 01:28
A Vampire with dreadknight can't get off his horse and get on, say, a dragon or Winged abomination.:eyebrows:
Ooookay must be too difficult for a centuries old vampire lord to switch steeds although all and sundry can manage it.
Maybe he just has a "special" relationship with his horse.
But said vampire can sprout wingts and carry said horse around with him :wtf:
One stupid answer deserve the other I suppose, but come on.

His necromancers got bored of only being there to stick skeletons together and stitch up zombies so they went all dennis the menace style on the vamp with superglue and a horse saddle.

sulla
02-02-2010, 02:14
Wouldn't a more gentlemanly arrangement be to just duel with them until the first blood? :evilgrin:Bleeding is such an easy out. 'First eye' will really sort the men from the boys...

CraftworldsRus
02-02-2010, 02:38
This really comes down to an "Opponents consent." If you never want to use an FAQ, fine. tell your opponent. He will either say Ok, or not. If not, you have no grounds to force anything, really. Wargaming is a social pastime, and I think all involved should just act like adults and talk things over.

After all, I could make up all kinds of silly rules, and your only options would be to not play me, or talk it over like adults. It seems like a few people you play with take issues with the FAQ, so maybe the real solution here is to get with your group and draft FAQ's that everyone is happy with, as a group project. I can honestly say I've done that with friends, and it is a good time.

Taureus
02-02-2010, 03:31
This really comes down to an "Opponents consent." If you never want to use an FAQ, fine. tell your opponent. He will either say Ok, or not. If not, you have no grounds to force anything, really. Wargaming is a social pastime, and I think all involved should just act like adults and talk things over.

After all, I could make up all kinds of silly rules, and your only options would be to not play me, or talk it over like adults. It seems like a few people you play with take issues with the FAQ, so maybe the real solution here is to get with your group and draft FAQ's that everyone is happy with, as a group project. I can honestly say I've done that with friends, and it is a good time.

Unfortunately I have tried numerous times to initiate houserule-writing.

It's not the FAQ's for the most part that they have issues with, it is the fact that I find certain answers within several of the FAQ's pertaining to our groups' armies to be misinformation.

I won't get into the details of which issues particularly. But like it has been mentioned before, trying to get a DE player to concede that the PoK fails on a 1 just like any other ward save, is like trying to beat down a brick wall with a toothpick.

nzdarkelf
02-02-2010, 07:21
Well in trying to persuade the DE player that the FAQ is not the final word on a certain pendant, and therefore it should follow the standard rule for ward saves, I was made to feel completely unwelcome to game with the players I had come to be rather good friends with.

So this thread is no longer needed, since disagreeing with these folks means I am too stubborn to be welcome.

@Mod: Close whenever you feel like it, since the original premise of the thread was to determine an avenue to broach this subject. Unfortunately this group has never been one for playing outside what's written in the army books (houserule-type things, like DP with magic items [WHFB] or alternate Ogryn [WH40K]).

I guess it just wasn't meant to be.

There is a seperate thread ongoing that deals with the Pendant, and there has been a definitive BRB rules answer for why normal ward save rules don't apply to it.
To quote the BRB, p120, "In cases of contradiction, the special rule of a magic item takes precedence over normal game rules." So in the case of the Pendant, the FAQ is clarifying the correct (hard and fast) rules from the BRB, that isn't subject to the whims of one player to the next.

I think you are asking alot of your opponents to voluntarily double the chance of auto failing the Pendants ward save. In short you are wrong, and that is supported by the BRB and therefore also RAW - not that I am necessarily a fan of RAW. Maybe your Darkelf opponents would be willing to play against you if you can see the error of your argument.

Condottiere
02-02-2010, 08:04
Gaming is a social activity, and whereas there are times I disagree with specifics of a GW FAQ, it's sometimes easier to accept them than to thresh out customized House Rules.

narrativium
02-02-2010, 09:09
I won't get into the details of which issues particularly. But like it has been mentioned before, trying to get a DE player to concede that the PoK fails on a 1 just like any other ward save, is like trying to beat down a brick wall with a toothpick.The PoK fails on a 1 if and only if the wounding attack has a Strength value of 0 or less. Its own rules combined with the BRB confirm this. It's not ambiguous at all, yet the question still comes up so the FAQ clarified that yes, your eyes and brain are still working and you can believe them, the PoK passes ward saves from Strength 1+ attacks on the roll of a 1. Why are you still trying to assault the PoK character with high Strength weaponry?

rtunian
02-02-2010, 13:03
Well in trying to persuade the DE player that the FAQ is not the final word on a certain pendant, and therefore it should follow the standard rule for ward saves, I was made to feel completely unwelcome to game with the players I had come to be rather good friends with.

the lesson people should learn from this is:
it's more important to have fun playing the game with your friends than to get bogged down in rules disputes

see "the most important rule", page three.

Griefbringer
02-02-2010, 13:51
'First eye' will really sort the men from the boys...

But once your opponent has lost a few times, it gets difficult to do it anymore... :eek:

Valaraukar
02-02-2010, 13:55
Don't worry by that stage they can't read the FAQ any longer anyway ;)

Taureus
02-02-2010, 14:42
There is a seperate thread ongoing that deals with the Pendant, and there has been a definitive BRB rules answer for why normal ward save rules don't apply to it.
To quote the BRB, p120, "In cases of contradiction, the special rule of a magic item takes precedence over normal game rules." So in the case of the Pendant, the FAQ is clarifying the correct (hard and fast) rules from the BRB, that isn't subject to the whims of one player to the next.

I think you are asking alot of your opponents to voluntarily double the chance of auto failing the Pendants ward save. In short you are wrong, and that is supported by the BRB and therefore also RAW - not that I am necessarily a fan of RAW. Maybe your Darkelf opponents would be willing to play against you if you can see the error of your argument.

Except that the FAQ neither changes the rules for ward saves, nor does the item include an exemption to the normal rules for them. Without a contradiction of the standard rules, the pendant still fails on a 1.

And I don't recall asking for opinions, so your post has nothing to do with what I was trying to ask about whether or not a FAQ should be required if I do not agree with it.

And this is not limited to the DE FAQ either. So kindly find somewhere else to post you opinions about the pendant, since they are not pertinent to this thrread.

bluemage
02-02-2010, 15:14
Sorry but this is a public rules forum where everyone is welcome to read and participate. So while you might not care what nzdarkelf has to say concerning the pendant, other players may.
Like Avian has pointed out are part of the rules for warhammer. You don't have to like them and if you can get your opponents to play without some of them then everything is fine and dandy. But don't expect your opponents to accept your ruling over the faq if it hurts their army.

Yellow Commissar
02-02-2010, 22:32
And I don't recall asking for opinions

Ah, herein lies the problem, now doesn't it.

You are right, they are wrong. All you want to hear is how you can prove them wrong so they have to play your way.

Your solution lies in taking a step back from the game and doing a bit of introspection.

Would you rather be right, or would you rather play and have fun?

nzdarkelf
02-02-2010, 22:55
the lesson people should learn from this is:
it's more important to have fun playing the game with your friends than to get bogged down in rules disputes

see "the most important rule", page three.

Awesome, well said.

Blueskies
02-02-2010, 22:56
If your playing a friendly, then who cares? you can make up your own rules if both players agreed. In a tournament setting, the FAQs are there to provide clarity, both player have access to the FAQs already and you can build your armies appropriately, there is no point reading a FAQ then building an army a different way that sufferes due to how the FAQ reads and complaining about it during the tournament, as garenteed the ref will just look at the FAQ and say, nope your opponent is right.

nzdarkelf
02-02-2010, 23:00
Except that the FAQ neither changes the rules for ward saves, nor does the item include an exemption to the normal rules for them. Without a contradiction of the standard rules, the pendant still fails on a 1.

And I don't recall asking for opinions, so your post has nothing to do with what I was trying to ask about whether or not a FAQ should be required if I do not agree with it.

And this is not limited to the DE FAQ either. So kindly find somewhere else to post you opinions about the pendant, since they are not pertinent to this thrread.

This is an open forum and I'm free to say what I want where I want. You should try rereading my post again as once again, in your 1st paragraph, you are wrong - as explained in my post.

Again, I don't need your permission to comment on this post, and I will continue to do so. Dark Elves have rights too you know!

nzdarkelf
02-02-2010, 23:05
I would like to also point out the piece from the BRB I have quoted, was sourced originally from another persons post. I like the fact that thru the discusion of the Pendants rules, I have learnt a rule that was always there, in plain view, but seems to have been overlooked by many of us. This is the reason why I come to Warseer - to learn, and if its possible, also at times to teach.

Taureus
03-02-2010, 04:20
The FAQ is not the rules, and as such, I am not bound to follow them. In friendly play especially.

I started this thread asking for advice about disagreeing with FAQ's in general, and in no way picked out any one answer until later on.

So this thread will remain closed since people find the need to insert opinions about a single magic item, when in fact the thread was not even made for that purpose. That's spamming right there, and I don't very much care for anyone else's opinions if they are going to flood my thread for the sole reason to continue an argument.