How to Deal with That Guy who Ignores Errata

[Zephaniah Adriyen]

I have a friend who claims that Errata and FAQs - y'know, all those things that we need to make the game balanced? - aren't valid because "I didn't pay for them, and maybe some player somewhere doesn't have a computer and can't get to the Errata", which is frustrating, to say the least. So what do you do when you're dealing with this guy? Bring something he can't ignore which is entirely legal pre-Errata, but is harmless post-Errata.

 

Some of you may have heard of a build available with AdMech. Bring a unit of six Kastelans with three Phosphor Blasters each, for nine shots per model, bring one or two CP battery Battalions... and unleash hell. With one CP Battalion plus the 1 CP from the Vanguard you put the Kastelans and Datasmiths in in the first place, you get 9, which translates to 486 shots, enough to kill anything within the 36" range around the Kastelans. Let me explain. In the AdMech Codex, there is a 1 CP Stratagem which reads as follows (emphasis mine):

 

Use this Stratagem at any time to do one of the following: reveal D3 hidden set-up markers (if your opponent is using Concealed Deployment); identify a Mysterious Objective anywhere on the battlefield; or shoot with an ADEPTUS MECHANICUS unit from your army without the penalties to your hit rolls from the Dawn Raid, Low Visibility or Cover of Darkness rules.

 

Now, it's that at any time part that's important. As far as I know, you can use Stratagems as many times as you want before the battle begins, which is included within "at any time". As written, this means you can pop off a free round of shooting with that big unit of Kastelans for every CP you have. This got fixed in Errata 1.2, after which the previous build got fixed to match the spirit of the rule (you can only use the third ability in your Shooting phase to remove the Dawn Raid, Low Visibility and Cover of Darkness rules from your normal shooting) but RAW, pre-Errata, you can easily obliterate everything inside 36" of your Kastelans.

Edited August 15, 2019 by Brother Tyler

[Brother Tyler]

Your friend lacks a balanced (and sportsmanlike) perspective on things.

 

FAQs and errata are official changes to the game, published by the company that makes the game. They are clearly official.

 

I see two possible motives here. The first is cheating for advantage - refusing to play by FAQ/errata because they tone things down. Conversely, there could be a streak of challenge/fair play in cases where a player is willing to accept an obsolete rule that is disadvantageous to him - this is a more honest motive.

 

If he has access to the online versions, then he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

 

If he doesn't have access to the online versions, then the sporting thing [for you] to do is to be able to provide them to him. I would have hard copies while being ready to access the online versions to verify that the FAQ/errata on the paper are the actual official changes (as opposed to being something that someone fabricated on their own).

 

If he still refuses to play by the FAQ/errata, I would probably refuse to play against him if the obsolete versions of the rules are advantageous to him (that smacks of a deliberate effort to cheat). If the rules are disadvantageous to him and you've made your honest best effort to show them to him, I wouldn't be as concerned (some people like a challenge).

[Panzer]

There's literally only one way to deal with "That Guy" (assuming you already tried to talk reasonably about it). Don't play with him.

[MARK0SIAN]

So if he didn’t pay for them would he refuse to play with/against any unit that has been released with pdf rules for free?

 

To be honest, it sounds like a ludicrous excuse and he’s outright refusing to play by the correct rules. I’m surprised anyone has any time at all for this guy. My advice would be to simply refuse to play him.

[Zephaniah Adriyen]

Your friend lacks a balanced (and sportsmanlike) perspective on things.

 

FAQs and errata are official changes to the game, published by the company that makes the game. They are clearly official.

 

I see two possible motives here. The first is cheating for advantage - refusing to play by FAQ/errata because they tone things down. Conversely, there could be a streak of challenge/fair play in cases where a player is willing to accept an obsolete rule that is disadvantageous to him - this is a more honest motive.

 

If he has access to the online versions, then he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

 

If he doesn't have access to the online versions, then the sporting thing [for you] to do is to be able to provide them to him. I would have hard copies while being ready to access the online versions to verify that the FAQ/errata on the paper are the actual official changes (as opposed to being something that someone fabricated on their own).

 

If he still refuses to play by the FAQ/errata, I would probably refuse to play against him if the obsolete versions of the rules are advantageous to him (that smacks of a deliberate effort to cheat). If the rules are disadvantageous to him and you've made your honest best effort to show them to him, I wouldn't be as concerned (some people like a challenge).

He does, in fact, have access to online rules, of this I am certain. I can stop playing with him, certainly... but, frankly, I need Kastelans and a Loyal 32 battery or two anyway.

[WarriorFish]

Tyler nails it, they're as official as you can get - whether printed or paid for or anything else doesn't matter it's from GW directly for the current published book.

 

Horses to water and all that, as Panzer says you've explained it and if he isn't willing to compromise for you why should you feel you must compromise for him? It's your hobby and your decision to make, I'd wager he may change his tune if you decline to game because of this - but if not that's his decision to make

 

40k is a social game with a social contract, like any other - it goes two ways so this is as much your choice as his. It's up to you what happens next

[Panzer]

Don't try to out-WAAC a "That Guy" unless you already are a rather competetive player in the first place. That way only lies madness.

[robofish7591]

I suppose the question would be is he using things that are only legal pre-FAQ, or is he playing normal casual lists and just doesn't want to bother keeping up with changes or extra rules?  Context is really important in this situation.

[CaptainMarsh]

FAQs and Errata aren't optional. If your friend doesn't follow them, then he is a cheater. Feel free to inform him of such.

[taikishi]

Devil's Advocate because I know some people like that:

 

Outside of official events, one can actually argue FAQ/Errata are as optional as playing the unofficial 9th Age WHFB vs AoS. That includes errata that improves a unit as well as errata that brings power levels down. I know I personally dislike living rules sets, not because of FAQ/Errata (because I absolutely feel those are necessary, having played competitive CCGs not named MtG), but because I feel they provide less incentive to at least try and get it right the first time. Further, some players are also more of the mindset of "don't change it, ban it.

 

At any rate, the way I see it, you really only have a handful of options here:

* play his way

* try and convince him to change (least likely option)

* don't play against him at all and tell him why

[RandyB]

Until you come to your own peace with "no gaming is better than bad gaming", you will be hostage to such bad actors as "This Guy" and suffer from his actions.

[Rik Lightstar]

If an opponent (outside of a tournament or other such event) told me that they weren't aware of an FAQ or Errata that impacted their list negatively, then I'd give them the benefit of the doubt for that game.

 

At the end of the game I'd leave them with my printed copies of the current FAQs and Errata, and tell them I'd expect to use them next time.

 

If through their own cunning trickery they get one game against me with the incorrect rules then that's fine.

 

Rik

[Oshikai]

I would have a sit down and and calmly talk to with him, either he relents because he is being rather unreasonable or you walk away....and I agree no game is better than bad game. Life is too short and Hobbytime valuable.

[The Unseen]

I mean, I think if the player isn't willing to listen to reasonable talks, bringing out the silliness of the kastelan brick deleting everything he deployed within 36" before the game begins would teach him a pretty good lesson. And afterwards, you offer to reset the board and play again, this time using said errata.

 

the look on the guys face alone would probably make it worth it.

 

But I'll reiterate what several someones have said above me, no gaming is better than bad gaming. "That Guy" isn't worth playing with more often than not.

[Halandaar]

"Claims that erratas aren't valid because blah blah"

 

You need to say "let me stop you there pal". He can't have an opinion on this and its not up for debate.

 

Erratas are formal updates to the rules published by the maker of the game. As soon as one is published, it is immediately considered to supercede what came before it. If he's not prepared to accept Erratas then he's effectively playing a house-ruled (i.e. unnoficial) version of the game.

[battle captain corpus]

.......oh.

 

Um....my names Battle Captain Corpus and I don’t use the FAQ’s or Erratas either.

 

Wait....WAIT! -ducks behind sandbags- Let me explain ;)

 

I’ve never used them to any extent really. I buy the rulebook, codex etc and that’s my rules. That’s where it starts and finishes for me. My hobby works to that premise that these are tools I need to play and I go from there.

On many (lost count) occasions I’ve played others who embrace the changes etc and I obviously am happy to play them and go with it. But I never push my agenda and will use the rules that fit the game etc too. If a player calls me out if I’m using an old rule etc I’ll look at it and agree upon the solution.

 

Luckily I play in a very friendly group and we basically chat hobby and game for the sheer pleasure of company and gaming though.

 

I can understand that in a competitive or local gaming group my approach would be weird. Again I can adapt.

 

Hope this helps? Other side of the coin, kind of?

 

BCC

[Ishagu]

FAQs and Errata are official GW updates.

 

He's in the wrong for ignoring them - I simply wouldn't play against him.

[The Unseen]

If that's what works for you and your group BC Corpus, then more power to you, *most* of the FAQs and erratas aren't necessary in really casual settings, as people aren't trying to push the envelope or find loopholes.

There are a handful of exceptions, of course.

But if your group is larger than a handful and therefore you don't necessarily *know* everyone you might play against, those erratas/FAQs can be very important.

[RandyB]

.......oh.

 

Um....my names Battle Captain Corpus and I don’t use the FAQ’s or Erratas either.

 

Wait....WAIT! -ducks behind sandbags- Let me explain ;)

 

I’ve never used them to any extent really. I buy the rulebook, codex etc and that’s my rules. That’s where it starts and finishes for me. My hobby works to that premise that these are tools I need to play and I go from there.

On many (lost count) occasions I’ve played others who embrace the changes etc and I obviously am happy to play them and go with it. But I never push my agenda and will use the rules that fit the game etc too. If a player calls me out if I’m using an old rule etc I’ll look at it and agree upon the solution.

 

Luckily I play in a very friendly group and we basically chat hobby and game for the sheer pleasure of company and gaming though.

 

I can understand that in a competitive or local gaming group my approach would be weird. Again I can adapt.

 

Hope this helps? Other side of the coin, kind of?

 

BCC

It meets the most important criteria: it works for your group and you all have fun. That's *good* gaming, which is best in life. (Conan and Ghengis Khan notwithstanding.)

[USNCenturion]

Again an example of no right answer.

 

Someone wanting to play the base rule book and nothing else is absolutely entitled to do so, just as someone refusing to play unpatched rules is also entitled to not play the same person. At some point, each will find a like minded opponent and fun will be had.

 

FWIW, I would prefer FAQd rules but wouldn’t mind playing someone who doesn’t want to use them.

[Kite Senet]

It's really astounding (and frankly a bit disgusting) to me that some here are willing to immediately throw out accusations of "cheater" at a player who doesn't like this brave new world of 8th edition, where you have to print out errata re-doing half of the rules in your codex every six months. My brother was, quite legitimately, VERY much frustrated when his Space Wolves codex *wasn't even legal as printed on day one.* Can we not expect GW to actually sell us a playtested, complete product on launch day? Is it really so unreasonable to expect quality and balance from the rules written in the expensive books they're selling you?

 

To paraphrase, "GW's released new rules so it's cheating to ask to play with the old ones"? Heck, is it cheating to ask your friends to dust off their Rogue Trader, 6th edition, or Index books and play some out of date 40K? A player can ask to play with the rules he wants. If you can't come to an agreement with such a player, then just don't play together, but here's no legitimate reason for anyone to instinctively whip out accusations of cheating or "That Guy" against someone who is clearly communicating a preference for playing with old rules, or homebrew rules for that matter. And I see no reason to believe the friend described by the OP has exhibited any evidence of malintent or deception.

 

Of course, OP, you're under no obligation to entertain this player's preference for non-errata'd/homebrew rules by playing with him; and if this is a tournament or competitive environment, the situation is entirely different; but I assert that there are perfectly respectable reasons to hold a preference for playing rules-as-originally-written, or at least to strongly dislike the tumult of 8th's constant post-release development.

[Panzer]

Can we not expect GW to actually sell us a playtested, complete product on launch day? Is it really so unreasonable to expect quality and balance from the rules written in the expensive books they're selling you?

 

 

They haven't ever managed to do so even before 8th so the fact that we are now at least get quick Erratas and FAQs instead of having to play with broken stuff that needs to get houseruled for years is a GOOD thing, not a bad one.

Also nobody forces you to print out Erratas. I haven't done so even once in my life. At best I have an offline version of it on my smartphone or laptop.

[Closet Skeleton]

It's really astounding (and frankly a bit disgusting) to me that some here are willing to immediately throw out accusations of "cheater" at a player who doesn't like this brave new world of 8th edition, where you have to print out errata re-doing half of the rules in your codex every six months.

 

The guy in the OP is clearly cheating and going against the intent of a rule. The Scryerskull stratagem is supposed to negate penalties not give you an extra round of shooting or it wouldn't be written that way and that was how everyone understood the stratagem when the book was released until some other rules lawyer caused the FAQ to clarify that.

 

The admech codex contains Infoslave Skull stratagem that lets you shoot out of sequence and it clearly has completely different wording to Scryerskull. Table top games are for people not simplistic logic machines, there's nothing 'legal' about a technically valid but far out there reading. The rules of the game are what the players agree they are. If both players agree that the morale phase doesn't exist or that gretchin can fly then that's the rules.

 

FAQs are irrelevant to the point, it should always be on any individual pair of players to make rule decisions when things aren't clearly written and any official ruling can never be any more than a guideline. If a player wants to use an abusive rule reading then it would be bad even if there wasn't an official FAQ on it. The point of an official ruling isn't to win a stupid argument its to provide an authoritative voice to stop confusion dragging down you playing experience. I've started arguments over people getting rules wrong and its never a good thing and anyone more interested in dragging them out than playing isn't really in the game to start with.

Edited August 16, 2019 by Closet Skeleton

[Rik Lightstar]

It's really astounding (and frankly a bit disgusting) to me that some here are willing to immediately throw out accusations of "cheater" at a player who doesn't like this brave new world of 8th edition, where you have to print out errata re-doing half of the rules in your codex every six months. My brother was, quite legitimately, VERY much frustrated when his Space Wolves codex *wasn't even legal as printed on day one.* Can we not expect GW to actually sell us a playtested, complete product on launch day? Is it really so unreasonable to expect quality and balance from the rules written in the expensive books they're selling you?

 

To paraphrase, "GW's released new rules so it's cheating to ask to play with the old ones"? Heck, is it cheating to ask your friends to dust off their Rogue Trader, 6th edition, or Index books and play some out of date 40K? A player can ask to play with the rules he wants. If you can't come to an agreement with such a player, then just don't play together, but here's no legitimate reason for anyone to instinctively whip out accusations of cheating or "That Guy" against someone who is clearly communicating a preference for playing with old rules, or homebrew rules for that matter. And I see no reason to believe the friend described by the OP has exhibited any evidence of malintent or deception.

 

Of course, OP, you're under no obligation to entertain this player's preference for non-errata'd/homebrew rules by playing with him; and if this is a tournament or competitive environment, the situation is entirely different; but I assert that there are perfectly respectable reasons to hold a preference for playing rules-as-originally-written, or at least to strongly dislike the tumult of 8th's constant post-release development.

Let's go back to the good old days of waiting for a new edition of the fame or hoping you happened to pick up the particular issue of white dwarf that had the relevant FAQ or Errata in. That was SUCH fun, I've gone all dewy eyes just at the memories.

 

No recent edition (last 10 years) of a GW, Privateer Press, SteamForged Games, Wyrd Miniatures, Mantic Games, Wizards of the Coast, Fantasy Flight, Paizo, or any other publisher I can think of's game has been without updates, errata and FAQs. Nor should they be.

 

Much the same as a "Day 1 Patch" of the latest game on your PC or Console of choice is frustrating, but better than a product with issues long term issues.

 

Rik

[Ishagu]

Remember guys, the situation TC describes directly benefits the opponent who refuses to use the Erratas and FAQs, to an unreasonable extent.

 

How would you feel if I refuse to use the errata and FAQ for the Castellan? Suddenly it's back to 600 points with a 3++ that only costs me 1CP because I'm using the one in the AdMech codex.