Paragraphs and sentences (Plus a free rant)

[Aurelius 12]

Evening all.

Apologies if there's already a thread on this- my search fu was unable to find one.

So my friend and I have noticed an interesting problem with the current FAQs- as far as we can tell someone at games workshop has a serious problem in that they don't know the difference between sentences and paragraphs.

The first example we noticed was the IG camo cloak. RAI is reasonably clear- replace stealth with +1 cover save. That being the case RAW says something quite different- if you delete sentence 2 rather than paragraph 2 you'd get stealth and +1 cover. When I brought this up at my local GW the general consensus was to go with RAI and that this was 'obviously what was meant'.

Then my Eldar friend (he's human actually but you know what I mean) brought some harlequins to a game based on the advice from the same GW that Veil of Tears got stealth, shrouded and could only be spotted within 2d6x2 inches.

When we read the FAQ and the codex entry alongside each other we were rather perplexed. Sentences 2 and 3 were about VoT being a warlock power and a fluffy line about the shadowseer confusing her opponents.

Paragraphs 2 and 3 were the rules about the spotting range and we decided that the RAI were meant to replace this rule rather than augment it, and generally complicate the entry further with regards to how it works as a power. (That said we also decided to house rule that they couldn't be targeted at more that 36 inches.)

So are there any other examples where the FAQ says sentence when logic suggests it should be paragraph?

And now for the rant: When I pointed out the discrepancy to the GW staffers they outright refused to consider anything but RAW for the harlequins, yet these are the same people who argued firmly for RAI on the camo cloaks.

Ok I know Eldar need a new codex but this just smacks of unprofessionalism. I know for a fact that both the manager and one other staffer involved in the conversation play Eldar and I can't help but feel this is some fanboyish attempt at making their own army better in the face of all reason. Granted GW didn't do anything to the harlies in the DE codex (something they tried to argue supported their claim somehow) but really this is just another great example of them dropping the ball.

Anyway, rant over. The main purpose of this thread is to see if anyone's spotted any other sentence/paragraph issues. I wonder if any of our non-English speaking brethren could shed any light on the issue?

[Nurgling Chieftain]

Yeah, the Harlequin issue came up in the Rules forum a few times. The fact that there's obviously an error does not appear to have deterred many people from seizing the most of it.

[igwarlord]

Personally I wold use it as RAI over RAW with my guard but use them as RAW against the GW staffers. HELL even cross out the lines and pencil in the rule changes.
THAT REALLY PISSES PEOPLE OFF!

[Dangersaurus]

THAT REALLY PISSES PEOPLE OFF!

Which is why we play games.

[Hawthorne]

I also find it odd I cannot find any changes in the FAQ changing the Veil of Tears in the Dark Eldar FAQ. Again it seems logical to use the RAI change from the Eldar codex but seems like an easy over sight.

[Aurelius 12]

Well they've fixed the VoT issue by simply rewriting the rule in a much better way. Though they haven't changed the Camo cloak ruling. So by RAW camo cloaks give you stealth and +1 to your cover save. :-)