Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
Ok, I've been in a debate over whether a FAQ is right or wrong. The person i am in this with insists that the FAQ is wrong. The subject is Typhu's Daemon weapon counts as poisoned. The FAQ says it is, but I'm told that since in the codex it says normal Daemon weapon it counts as Undevided. If the FAQ states something, is it final? Is saying it's wrong pointless?
Last edited by Hashulaman; April 24th, 2009 at 05:59.
If a Million Guardsmen die, that's a statistic. If one marine dies, that's a tragedy.
does typhus' manreaper have the plaguebringer ability or is it just a basic daemon weapon?
the brought-up points:
*Typhus has a Manreaper and mark of Nurgle
*the Manreaper is treated as a normal daemon weapon (the force weapon part isnt in question here)
*Daemon weapons 'grant additional abilities that varies with the Mark of their bearer, as described below.'
*but the actual Mark abilities only list 'Lords w/ xx Mark'
*nowhere does it say that Typhus counts a Lord (so he wouldn't benefit from either the unmarked or marked bonus)
*in the csm dex: plaguebringer grants a poisoned attack ability
*in the gw website FAQ section: Typhus' daemon weapon has a poisoned attack (ergo acts like the plaguebringer ability)
*errata are corrections to the rules, FAQs are clarifications to existing rules
*as nothing in the codex gives him poisoned attacks, it cannot be clarified that he does indeed have poisoned attacks (therefore he does not get a poisoned attacks via the FAQ)
the other question:
gw website Errata/FAQs: do they require player consent to be in effect during a game?
my logic going under the premise that he is a lord:
the manreaper which counts as a normal daemon weapon, then becomes the plaguebringer ability due to his mark.
my logic going under the premise that he isn't a lord:
it operates as a daemon weapon but with no mark bonus, but as the FAQ clarifies that he does have a poisoned attack already somehow anyways. therefore whether it actually is or isnt, the weapon functions as if it had the plaguebringer ability.
my answer to the second question:
they don't require player consent. (otherwise the one's that fixed game exploits would just get ignored)
if players don't have access to FAQs, they make due with what they have. if someone wants to cheat by ignoring a FAQ or editing his copy for his unwitting opponent. that's a question of moral integrity.
anyways, so what's everyone else's opinion on the question.
A poll is a horrible way to address a rules question
/shrug, the FAQ is the rules as intended by the people who wrote the book. They are the rules as played at every tournament and organized event everywhere. If there's a part that's not clear, maybe the other person's interpretation is in fact 'more right' than the FAQ version based on analysis of the language. That would be a good indicator of why they felt it worth of a FAQ in the first place. When the publisher of the book tells you what they really meant, that seems like a pretty reliable place to go to settle the argument.
Whoever at GW decided to pen that inane paragraph they put up about how FAQ answers are 'just studio house rules' and 'aren't as official as errata entries' need a good drubbing with a sack full of snotlings. Seriously, that's got to be the most trouble-causing thing they've put in print in a decade. It is true you could play by your own house interpretation rules and ignore the rules as intended and interpreted by the publisher of the book. You could also decide you think the cover rules are stupid (they are) and allow it as a second save instead of a replacement save like in fantasy.
Just don't be surprised when someone outside your circle that uses your own house interpretation of the rules looks at you like you have two heads and laughs when you try to explain how the interpretation as given by the publisher of the game is 'wrong' and you demand to use your alternate interpretation that favors your army or penalizes theirs!
Cert, I used to make the argument as you've listed above, the one about Typhus not being a lord, and thus, not receiving the blessings of the plaguebringer tempalte for his manreaper. After all, the codex supports this logic. However, once the FAQ came out, I gave it up. Unless you're playing by house rules that contradict an Errata or FAQ, they are indeed the Law.
The Manreaper is just one of those instances that demonstrates how we cannot make logical inferences, even within a codex, for determining ambiguous answers. If, on the other hand, the FAQ had clarified Typhus as a Lord, then the logic would still stand. At any rate, I'm not here to take my bashing stick to GW. They've made a great game, even if they aren't sounds logicians or clear editors.
Last edited by Rabbit; April 24th, 2009 at 07:29.
Spambot kill tally. . .337
From what I understood, nobody in Chat was suggesting that we "overthrow" the FAQs. It was just being pointed out that they tell us the Manreaper is poison without fully explaining why. Even a simple "we meant to" would be great.
The way it is, it leaves holes for the player to fill in, at least for the purposes of understanding how the rule works. It is felt by some, including myself, that this encourages players to make assumptions (i.e., Typhus must be a Lord).
We all know that the majority of rules misunderstandings are due to an assumption on player's parts.
"It takes a vast amount of self control to be this dangerous."
---Ogvai Ogvai Helmshrot, Jarl of Tra, VI Legion Astartes
I don't see why people are so hung up on this.
Only Lords have access to Daemon weapons (thyphus being the exception) and so the paragraph only mentions Lords.
A nurgle marked model with a daemon weapon is going to have a nurgle daemon weapon. That is just logical (no place in 40k, I know)
Arch Overfiend & Grand Despot
I currently play:
Doom Eagle Space Marines
Hive Fleet Omega Tyranids
Goff Ork Boyz(dead)
Tau of O'me
Inquisitorial Xeno Hunters
and my attempted foray into fantasy
'Dark Angel Green' Dark Elves in need of fluff
EDIT: changed my above post to reflect the other thread (so annoyed jaff went and made a separate thread for his case when he already knew about this one)
about the whole disregard FAQ thing...
actually jaff brought it up earlier in the debate before you showed (it had been going on for a long while before you showed)
he had stated how the FAQ was wrong because he couldn't see how Typhus could have poison attacks. he said that since typhus didn't have the prerequisite to gain the plaguebringer ability (ie being a Lord).While a FAQ is just a clarification of the rules (as opposed to an Errata that ammends rules) and there was no rule to begin with, hence the FAQ could be disregarded by him for being wrong.
that's when he brought up how FAQs had to be agreed upon by bother players before their use in a game; due to cases where both players may not have them or one might try to cheat with his own,
(their availability basically being the same as 'chapter approved' and IA rules.) since they basically were based off the gw website and not published material. as well as the quote on 'grey areas' and such that the writers made.
i don't feel like copy/paste'ing my next post on the other thread (very annoyed that he actually went and posted his own separate thread about the same debate elsewhere instead of stating his case here as well).
basically i explained how Plaguebringer is an "additional ability" to a normal daemon weapon and not a different type of daemon weapon altogether as he believes. while it can still be argued that Typhus isn't a lord and so doesn't meet individual marks' prerequisites despite the entry previously stating just the "bearer" of the weapon.
with the FAQ, it's still clarified that he does have the product of the Plaguebringer ability.
typhus must be a lord... if he walks, talks, and quacks like one in both rules and fluff, chances are he is one... while assumptions can lead to rules mistakes by players from time to time, in cases such as where it is quite clear with all the points laid out, i think it's clear to see what the rule had intended to be.
i know common sense isn't common and deductive reasoning, but this game was intentionally left fairly open so we would make of it what we wanted it to be. most times the intention of the rule isn't too hard to deduce, come up with a simple solution to the confusion, or even settling the difference of opinion by a coin flip.
that's better than trying make the game out to be a system of using flimsy wording to deny opponents certain abilities while using other loopholes to field tactics inconducive to the intention of the games nature.
but that's generally the difference between people who play just recreationally and those who play seriously.
It might also help the situation to point out that 'lord' is not a 'unit type,' but more of a fluff word. Lords, Sorcerers, and Special Characters are all infantry, based upon 'unit type.'
Side (somewhat pertains): Abaddon is also said to have a daemon weapon (or at least a 'counts as deamon weapon'). Yet, nowhere in his description is he listed as a Chaos Lord.
Spambot kill tally. . .337