Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hello,
Answers are below.

Thanks!

John Spencer
Customer Service Specialist

Please do not delete previous email threads as this will help us serve you better!

Games Workshop
Customer Service
6711 Baymeadow Drive Suite A
Glen Burnie MD 21060

Games Workshop Customer Service is open:
Monday through Friday 9:00 Am to 7:00 PM EST

Contact info:
1-888-248-2335
custservATgames-workshop.com

Or visit us online at:
www.games-workshop.com
________________________________________
From: me
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 5:21 PM
To: askyourquestion
Subject: rules questions

Hello!
I would be grateful for an answer to these three questions:
1. Does an Ork Battlewagon with a Deff Rolla inflict d6 STR10 hits if it rams a vehicle?
No.
2. Is a unit which loses an assault and chooses to pass the morale check via God of War subject to No Retreat?
Yes.
3. Will the responses to #1 and #2 above be consistent from one emailer to the next?
Yes.

I think most people will stick with the ramming ability for realism. Maybe Phil Kelly intended for it to affect vehicles though.

yeah,
cheese, well most people will need to adjust to the actual rules...

olympia thanx for posting this... these have been two of the biggest rules abuses that i've seen to date... they really made me sad..

Panic...

Except the e-mails are not 'official', just an unbiased answer that may or may not be correct. Just because the answers may be consistent between on e-mail to the next doesn't mean that they're not consistently wrong.

If only there were some way of divining the rules from the rulebooks, perhaps by way of some decoding device...

Until you call a rulesboy and get 4 different answers including maybe.

Good thing those guys are gone now (at least thats what I heard).

I feel that many people are quick to be dismissive on this issue.

I don't exactly know, but someone with actual Knowledge and not mere Conjecture please respond.

Just exactly what makes the FAQ's more official than this written email response?

Both are Written and so can be verified.

Both come from employed GW personnel.

Both, as far as I know, could just be a couple of people reading the rules, making judgments, and being consistent, or
both could be speaking directly to the DEV team on a semi regular basis.

Both are prone to inconsistencies and flip flopping (i.e. Power of the Machine Spirit differences, Land Speeder Deepstriking and firing, Synapse Instant Death protection > Str 8)

In fact, this email response is from a real person's name (John Spencer). The FAQ's only have a thanks to YAKFACE's and the FAQ ruling council. (Much respect to YAKFACE
though I must say)

I would love to hear comments

Ultramar Custodian wrote:I feel that many people are quick to be dismissive on this issue.

I don't exactly know, but someone with actual Knowledge and not mere Conjecture please respond.

You're... joking, right? Do you honestly have no idea as to GW being horrifically inconsistant on staff answers? Regardless of who they are?

As for any particular developer having greater knowledge of the rules than the player body at large, that's pure falsehood. Just read the White Dwarf battle reports; rare is the day where some kind of semi-glaring rules mistake is made within army composition and rules.

This is why no one listens to a source until it's in some form of official FAQ. Even Yakface'll tell you that his pontification and research means little to gamers at large until they see an FAQ stamp.

Quite frankly, his answer to the third question is something none of them can promise.

Cervidal,

I have never called GW for a rules inquiry, though I have long heard the tales of inconsistencies in their answers. I completely understand why this would garner no credibility among the community.

A customer service rep on the phone has to give an ad hoc answer immediately whether they are right or wrong, consistent or not. But a rep on email would not only be verifiable

because it is written, but would also give them time to check with others to make sure their answers are consistent.

Why can't this be as credible as the FAQ stamp?

Maybe it's not at that point right now, but couldn't it grow to be? My original point was that people were being too quick to dismiss it.

Strange i just emailed them to confirm and i get the opposite answer! Lookatit it's OFFICIAL now!!!!!!!11111ONEELEVEN

Hello,
Answers are below.

Thanks!

John Spencer
Customer Service Specialist

Please do not delete previous email threads as this will help us serve you better!

Games Workshop
Customer Service
6711 Baymeadow Drive Suite A
Glen Burnie MD 21060

Games Workshop Customer Service is open:
Monday through Friday 9:00 Am to 7:00 PM EST

Contact info:
1-888-248-2335
custservATgames-workshop.com

Or visit us online at:
www.games-workshop.com
________________________________________
From: me
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 5:21 PM
To: askyourquestion
Subject: rules questions

Hello!
I would be grateful for an answer to these three questions:
1. Does an Ork Battlewagon with a Deff Rolla inflict d6 STR10 hits if it rams a vehicle?
Yes, ramming is a special kind of tank shock

Sorry if it ain't printed in a rulebook or faqqed on the official GW site it's garbage, and should be treated as such.

Ultramar Custodian wrote:I feel that many people are quick to be dismissive on this issue.

I don't exactly know, but someone with actual Knowledge and not mere Conjecture please respond.

Just exactly what makes the FAQ's more official than this written email response?

Both are Written and so can be verified.

Both come from employed GW personnel.

Both, as far as I know, could just be a couple of people reading the rules, making judgments, and being consistent, or
both could be speaking directly to the DEV team on a semi regular basis.

Both are prone to inconsistencies and flip flopping (i.e. Power of the Machine Spirit differences, Land Speeder Deepstriking and firing, Synapse Instant Death protection > Str 8)

In fact, this email response is from a real person's name (John Spencer). The FAQ's only have a thanks to YAKFACE's and the FAQ ruling council. (Much respect to YAKFACE
though I must say)

I would love to hear comments

First off, I didn't write those FAQs. That is only a 'thanks' to myself and the rest of the Adepticon council.


But back to your question, there are a few reasons why GW customer service responses are fairly useless:

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=600005&pIndex=1&aId=3400019&start=2


As you can see from GW's own rules resolution flowchart, calling (or emailing in this case) a customer service representative to get a rules question answered is something to be done after asking a buddy in your local gaming store. In other words, your friends in the store (or here online) give more 'official' answers then the GW customer service representatives.


But beyond that, the truth is that their customer service reps have no actual ability to contact the games designers to ask them questions. Their ability to provide answers stems only from their personal opinion on the matter.

This means that these customer service reps (formerly called 'rules boyz') are notorious for giving different answers because each one is answering from their own personal viewpoint.

Their rulings are not official because there isn't any way to actually verify what they say with your opponent. Sure you can bring a printout of your email to your games to show to your opponent but how do they know you haven't faked the email? I suppose your friends could all call/email the guy later to verify but that's certainly not going to help you in pick-up games or at a tournament.


But more importantly, feel free to email this customer service representative back and ask him if his rulings carry the full official weight of the games designers and if his ruling will stand at, for example, a Grand Tournament.

The response that will be given back is that his answers are not official.

Again. lol----just lol.

wow theres a shocker

getting opposite answers out of 2 different calls? yep sounds like GW to me.

the only reasonable solution from my perspective is to go with the precedent set at recent tournaments. that way atleast you are playing it in the way that is the MOST LIKELY way to be ruled at your next tournament

please continue to beat the dead horse

NaZ

Thanks to Yakface and others who responded.

I guess it was just wishful thinking on my part.

Oh well. That's why I come to Dakka first.

Thanks!

John Spencer
Customer Service Specialist

Please do not delete previous email threads as this will help us serve you better!

Games Workshop
Customer Service
6711 Baymeadow Drive Suite A
Glen Burnie MD 21060

Games Workshop Customer Service is open:
Monday through Friday 9:00 Am to 7:00 PM EST

Contact info:
1-888-248-2335
custservATgames-workshop.com

Or visit us online at:
www.games-workshop.com
________________________________________
From: me
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 5:21 PM
To: askyourquestion
Subject: rules questions

Hello!
I would be grateful for an answer to these three questions:
1. Does an Ork Battlewagon with a Deff Rolla inflict d6 STR10 hits if it rams a vehicle?
yes! infact when you do this, it opens a VORTEX OF DOOM up on the table that ONLY!!!!!! affects your enemy, and they ALL suffer str10 d6 wounds. hope you have enough dice!!!!



wow look at my response! who would of thought that john spencer guy could be so awesome! oh wait i just reposted the thread and changed the wording man im a basterd.
OK seriously people that deff rolla thing SHOULD NOT BE USED TO RAM VEHICLES! it would snap right off the first time the battle wagon used it in that manner. its just a roller slapped to the front of a tank via steel beams. it would crumble in an instant. i dont CARE what you think the rulebook says on it. and you people that defend the fact that its supposed to be a rules as written so ram everything are cheaters IMO.

KingCracker wrote:
OK seriously people that deff rolla thing SHOULD NOT BE USED TO RAM VEHICLES! it would snap right off the first time the battle wagon used it in that manner. its just a roller slapped to the front of a tank via steel beams. it would crumble in an instant. i dont CARE what you think the rulebook says on it. and you people that defend the fact that its supposed to be a rules as written so ram everything are cheaters IMO.

No, cheaters are people who try to get their way by using flimsy fluff arguments when the rules clearly say otherwise. The game is played according to the rules, not the fluff.

Yup, and the rules state that Deff Rollas are used during Tank Shock, not Ramming.

And yet again, you're ignoring the fact that Ramming IS a type of Tank Shock.

A Special kind of Tank Shock. On this one, I'm on the fence. I see both sides of RAI'ing the RAW. I see Tank Shock and Ramming being distinctly different. But I also see Ramming being a subset of Tank Shocking. Balance wise, I think for now I lean towards not giving the bonus attacks, as it so drastically reduces the inherent risk factor of going for broke with a ramming attack.

Technically speaking, no Ork technology would work. The full power of the Waaagh! is used to fire each and every pistol, stabilize their bikes, lift their deffkoptas, and provide their rams with the fortitude to squish anything they come into contact against. So from a strictly fluffy standpoint, there's no problem with either approach. Personally, if it can squish a hive tyrant, carnifex or a squad of terminators, then I think it is plenty tough enough to handle the toughest vehicles out there. Again, that is going completely from fluff and the elusive 40k 'logic'.

Nothing short of a FAQ will settle the rules debate.

As an ork player, I believe it works. There's nothing more fluffy than that reasoning.

Yeah, sure, if you're gullible enough to take Genetor Anzion to be relating the facts of the matter, why not?

Magic pixie-dust for everyone!

All I ask is that people who fake an email (nostromo) say that they did so like KinGCracker did.

The Heat 2 GT FAQ which has apparently been through the Dev team specifies Deathrollers do not apply to Ramming, only to Tank Shock.

This is about as official as you are likely to get unless the Ork FAQ is updated soon.

I would laugh my butt off if because of this argument on rules, that they faq it so that it wouldn't work on monsterous creatures or tanks.lol

By debating over samantics in my opinion you open far too many doors than you close.

Nothing wrong with discussing semantics, if you know how to reason about semantics, logic, and rules. The problem in the rules forum isn't arguing about semantics, it's that semantics is a closed book to so many people.

OK seriously people that deff rolla thing SHOULD NOT BE USED TO RAM VEHICLES! it would snap right off the first time the battle wagon used it in that manner. its just a roller slapped to the front of a tank via steel beams. it would crumble in an instant. i dont CARE what you think the rulebook says on it. and you people that defend the fact that its supposed to be a rules as written so ram everything are cheaters IMO.

So, by following this line of reasoning (it shouldn't work because it LOOKS flimsy), then you would have no problem with me using one on you if I modeled it to look as secure as... Oh... say... a RAM on the front of an Ork Trukk?
I wonder how THOSE are attached.

Oh. Wait... a couple of steel beams.
MUCH more secure than the Deff Rolla.


Eric

I always wondered what the problem was with Reinforced Rams on Ork Trukks allowing them to ram other vehicles: the text of the Reinforced Ram explicity says that it enables vehicles to ram things.

don_mondo wrote:All I ask is that people who fake an email (nostromo) say that they did so like KinGCracker did.

Doesn't that kind of defy the point...