Can the FAQ be used to issue errata (create new rules)?

[glass]

This board is not a source for rules errata. If it was, WotC would have said so. As such, this board is nothing more than a place you can possibly go to ask questions and get unofficial answers and/or quoted official answers by those who do have the power to say so, i.e. designers or WotC reps.

So no, this board is not a valid source for rules errata. Can we find correct information here? Sure. If someone posts their own rules change, however, it is not official, which means this can't be a source for official errata, but rather a place you might find official errata quoted.

So, noone at WotC has ever dropped by ENworld to see what's causing the big debate, with a view to the next Errata update? And if they did, they would have to have anounced that they were doing so? Both seem unlikely to me.


glass.

 

[jdrakeh]

Only a general consensus in the English speaking world can do that.

Don't be so sure. Inside of the hobby, small but driven groups of people have changed the accepted connotation of words like 'innovation', 'independent', 'pulp', and other pre-existing English words, turning them into largely meaningless jargon (much to my horror).

 

[irdeggman]

And which "version" of Enlgish?

The one that spells the words as colour and armour or the one that spells them as color and armor?

Even though I belong the the latter we are in a minority world-wise, but the WotC books are written with fewer "u"s.

 

[Artoomis]

So, noone at WotC has ever dropped by ENworld to see what's causing the big debate, with a view to the next Errata update? And if they did, they would have to have anounced that they were doing so? Both seem unlikely to me.


glass.

There is world of difference between a source for potential errata and a source for actual errata.

Thare are only two sources for actual rules changes and errata, with many sources for potential rules changes and errata.

The two sources are:

The errata documents and (under debate) the FAQ.

 

[Coredump]

Two.

One said it's errata directly,

One said the FAQ was a source for errata, which I will agree is equivalent.

while another said everything (with no qualifiers) in the FAQ is official

Being an official FAQ, is not the same as being official errata. Yes, he said the FAQ is official, that is very different from saying it is equivalent to errata.

So, as I said. One.

Plus, you keep saying *WoTC* said something. No, one (and you argue two) CustServ people said something.
Just the other day I had a Bank Manager tell me their company policy, and he was darn sure of it. But he was wrong. Now, if WoTC wanted to say it, they could easily post it, or, heaven's forbid, simply change the wording in the FAQ or errata to reflect this. But they haven't.

Even Trevor gave a most vague answer that could go either way.

Trevor's answer was not vague. In fact, he was the only one to actually give a complete answer, more than a single sentence. The *only* way to think it was vague, is to somehow believe that he made all that reply, and somehow never mentioned that WoTC *did* use it for errata, eventhough they shouldn't. And does anyone actually believe that Trevor would be 'badmouthing' WoTC's behavior in that way? "Yes they 'should' be different... eventhough I know they are not." Isn't that a recipe for getting fired?

 

[glass]

And which "version" of Enlgish? The one that spells the words as colour and armour or the one that spells them as color and armor?

Even though I belong the the latter we are in a minority world-wise, but the WotC books are written with fewer "u"s.

They still mean the same thing, though!

Also, about 260 million people spell colour without a 'u'. I hardly think that that many people want to change 'FAQ' to mean 'errata'. In fact, I doubt anyone outside of this thread does.


glass.

 

[Borlon]

I think people are reading selectively, and maybe that's a good thing.

If WotC says: "Errata will only be published in the errata documents" (or words to that effect) then if you take them seriously you will disregard anything else that they say that seems to contradict this statement. So if something appears in the FAQ that LOOKS like errata, you'll say "since errata can only be in the errata document, this can't be errata, even though it looks like errata." And if Wizards Cust Serv SEEM to be using "official" to mean "errata" then those remarks will be disregarded too, and so on, and so on. Only if they change the original statement as to where errata will be published will these other statements be taken seriously.

This is no doubt very frustrating to people who prefer to use some kind of balance of probabilities when interpreting WotC pronouncements. If there are too many things that look like errata in the FAQ, and too many statements by Cust Serv that support the notion that there are errata in the FAQ, and so on, after a while they will believe that this is, in fact, the case, and that there has been an unannounced change in the "Errata will only be published in the errata documents" rule.

I don't know of any good way to decide which side is right. The "No" side will not listen to anything from the Sage or Wizards Cust Serv short of an amendment to the errata rule. And they might be right.

 

[Artoomis]

I think ...

A decent summary, I think. Thanks.

 

[Caliban]

I think people are reading selectively, and maybe that's a good thing.

If WotC says: "Errata will only be published in the errata documents" (or words to that effect) then if you take them seriously you will disregard anything else that they say that seems to contradict this statement. So if something appears in the FAQ that LOOKS like errata, you'll say "since errata can only be in the errata document, this can't be errata, even though it looks like errata." And if Wizards Cust Serv SEEM to be using "official" to mean "errata" then those remarks will be disregarded too, and so on, and so on. Only if they change the original statement as to where errata will be published will these other statements be taken seriously.

This is no doubt very frustrating to people who prefer to use some kind of balance of probabilities when interpreting WotC pronouncements. If there are too many things that look like errata in the FAQ, and too many statements by Cust Serv that support the notion that there are errata in the FAQ, and so on, after a while they will believe that this is, in fact, the case, and that there has been an unannounced change in the "Errata will only be published in the errata documents" rule.

I don't know of any good way to decide which side is right. The "No" side will not listen to anything from the Sage or Wizards Cust Serv short of an amendment to the errata rule. And they might be right.

My point of view:

I accept that the FAQ is used to issue errata, even though it really shouldn't be. But only when it states that it is doing so (i.e. "the rules says this, but should say something else" or something similar). Side comments in answer to a different question are not errata, they are mistakes or suggestions.

Cust Serv has no ability to issue errata, they can't even answer straightforward questions correctly half the time.

 

[Borlon]

My point of view:

I accept that the FAQ is used to issue errata, even though it really shouldn't be. But only when it states that it is doing so (i.e. "the rules says this, but should say something else" or something similar). Side comments in answer to a different question are not errata, they are mistakes or suggestions.

Cust Serv has no ability to issue errata, they can't even answer straightforward questions correctly half the time.

:nods: That makes sense. Just like a feat or spell enables you to do something that the rules would normally disallow- the specific overrules the generic. If a FAQ ruling said that it was changing a rule, and that this change would be in the next set of published errata... well, what you said.