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.

Since YMDC has been getting so much attention lately, I've been jumping on the bandwagon. I've been pretty sparse on this forum for the last year or so, but when I returned I noticed that there were several kinds of posting behavior that are non-productive and can cause problems, both with debates and flaming.

What I'd like to do is come up with a list of some basic tenets of YMDC to help alleviate the problem (and make it easy for people to refute posts based on these rules). Here are some that I roughed out:

1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give a basis for a statement; without this, there can be no debate.
1a. Don't just say someone is wrong without saying why.
- I just see this often. It can be time consuming, but make the effort to explain your position.

2. The Rules Boyz' answers hold no sway here.
- Games Workshop acknowledges that these answers are in now way official, and answers to the same question at different times have been found to be contradictory.

3. Never, ever bring real-world examples into a rules argument.
- The rules, while creating a very rough approximation of the real world, are an abstraction of a fantasy universe. Real world examples have no bearing on how the rules work. So quit it.

4. Clearly delineate Rules As Written from How You'd Actually Play It
- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.

If anyone can link my lazy butt to an official Games Workshop statement about number 2 (the Rules Boyz), I'd really appreciate it.

Any suggestions for additions or changes?

Ha! That's a trick question. I know you have suggestions. Let's hear them.

I'll chime in and note this is a sister thread to the YMDC improvement thread.

The problem with #4 is that there are those who play RaW and those who Know RaW but ignore it anyway. That is what causes the most arguments imo.

the only Official changes or clarifications to the rulebook/codices are Erratas.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=cat1290031&categoryId=1000018§ion=&aId=3400019


ERRATA & FAQs
Welcome to the Errata & FAQs section of our website. Here you can find the latest Errata & FAQs documents for our current books in the form of downloadable pdf documents.

In this section we cover Warhammer Fantasy Battle, Warhammer 40,000 and The Lord of the Rings Strategy Battle Game. We aim to have one pdf for each book belonging to these systems, including the three main rulebooks and all Warhammer Armies books, Warhammer 40,000 Codexes, and The Lord of the Rings Journey Books and Sourcebooks. If a book is not covered, it is either because we are not aware of any issues with it or we haven't got to it yet.

We aim to publish a first document within the first few months of a book's release. After this initial release, we'll review and update these documents regularly, adding new questions and errata, and correcting any mistakes we might have made when answering some of the questions.

What's the difference between Errata and FAQs?
As it is rather obvious from their name, these documents include two separate elements - the Errata and the FAQs. In case you were wondering, 'Errata' is a posh (Latin!) way to say 'Errors', and 'FAQs' stands for 'Frequently Asked Questions'. It is important to understand the distinction between the two, because they are very different.

The Errata are simply a list of the corrections we plan to make on the next reprint of the book to fix the mistakes that managed to slip into the text (no matter how many times you check a book, there are always some!). These are obviously errors, for example a model that has WS3 in the book's bestiary and WS4 in the book's army list. The Errata would say something like: 'Page 96. Replace WS3 with WS4 in the profile of the so-and-so model'.

The Errata have the same level of 'authority' as the main rules, as they effectively modify the published material. They are 'hard' material. It is a good idea to read them and be aware of their existence, but luckily there are very few of them for each book.

The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'. They are, of course, useful when you play a pick-up game against someone you don't know, or at tournaments (i.e. when you don't have a set of common 'house rules' with the other player). However, if you disagree with some answers and prefer to change them in your games and make your own house rules with your friends, that's fine. In fact we encourage you to shape the game around your needs and your taste. We firmly believe that wargaming is about two (or more!) people creating a gaming experience they are both going to enjoy. In other words, you might prefer to skip the FAQs altogether and instead always apply the good old 'roll a dice' rule whenever you meet a problematic situation.

- Games Development, November 2008

Can we have the part about FAQ's in Bold and bigger please? As that is the main point

These?:

Stick to discussing the rules, not the poster. Phrases like "Rules Lawyer," and "TFG" have no place in rules discussions. Don't depart from rules discussions by attaching value judgments to different interpretations.

Iorek wrote:2. The Rules Boyz' answers hold no sway here.
- Games Workshop acknowledges that these answers are in now way official, and answers to the same question at different times have been found to be contradictory.

I think you have some old prejudice here. Askyourquestion@games-workshop.com and the FAQ's are both official sources of answers to rules questions for 40K. Games Workshop endorses them and specifically directs you there. That makes them official. What they aren't, are mandatory. Of course, nothing in 40K is mandatory, it is all just a framework for play.

The Rules Boyz don't exist anymore. You have one person centrally responsible for answering the emailed questions, who was specifically chose for this task. He has access to the design studio to validate answers as necessary. When the guys that make the rules appoint someone to speak for them and publicly back that person, I think it is ludicrous to ignore him because you had a bad experience with an old version of the system that no longer exists.

The only difference between an answer from the email address and the FAQ's is availability. You can validate what someone is claiming from a FAQ instantly with internet access. You have to wait for an email response to validate someone else's emailed answer. If FAQ's are taken as canon in games and tournaments, there is no reason that emailed answers that have been validated should not be as well.

Gwar! wrote:The problem with #4 is that there are those who play RaW and those who Know RaW but ignore it anyway. That is what causes the most arguments imo.

I'd proffer #4 is for those like myself who are asking due to a point that came up in a game. Something relatively simple and not designed for a detailed subtle debate. AKA how do you play this?

Stick to discussing the rules, not the poster. Phrases like "Rules Lawyer," and "TFG" have no place in rules discussions. Don't depart from rules discussions by attaching value judgments to different interpretations.

I like this. I would add this and elimination of the term cheating.

But you cannot validate Emails unless "Wotzizname" Sends you a Letter signed and sealed in blood (or PGP, but now we are getting silly).

I can easily forge a Email to support whatever I want. As such, they should not be brought up for that very reason.

Gwar wrote:The problem with #4 is that there are those who play RaW and those who Know RaW but ignore it anyway. That is what causes the most arguments imo.

How about this:

4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kaaihn wrote:

Iorek wrote:2. The Rules Boyz' answers hold no sway here.
- Games Workshop acknowledges that these answers are in now way official, and answers to the same question at different times have been found to be contradictory.

I think you have some old prejudice here. Askyourquestion@games-workshop.com and the FAQ's are both official sources of answers to rules questions for 40K. Games Workshop endorses them and specifically directs you there. That makes them official. What they aren't, are mandatory. Of course, nothing in 40K is mandatory, it is all just a framework for play.

The Rules Boyz don't exist anymore. You have one person centrally responsible for answering the emailed questions, who was specifically chose for this task. He has access to the design studio to validate answers as necessary. When the guys that make the rules appoint someone to speak for them and publicly back that person, I think it is ludicrous to ignore him because you had a bad experience with an old version of the system that no longer exists.

The only difference between an answer from the email address and the FAQ's is availability. You can validate what someone is claiming from a FAQ instantly with internet access. You have to wait for an email response to validate someone else's emailed answer. If FAQ's are taken as canon in games and tournaments, there is no reason that emailed answers that have been validated should not be as well.

You are correct, sir. I had forgotten about that change. Since I'm feeling lazy, would you mind rewriting number 2 for me?

That's better.

Gwar! wrote:But you cannot validate Emails unless "Wotzizname" Sends you a Letter signed and sealed in blood (or PGP, but now we are getting silly).

I can easily forge a Email to support whatever I want. As such, they should not be brought up for that very reason.

Validating an email means you yourself send an email to the address listed on the website asking the question. When you get the answer back, you have validation.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Iorek wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:

Iorek wrote:2. The Rules Boyz' answers hold no sway here.
- Games Workshop acknowledges that these answers are in now way official, and answers to the same question at different times have been found to be contradictory.

I think you have some old prejudice here. Askyourquestion@games-workshop.com and the FAQ's are both official sources of answers to rules questions for 40K. Games Workshop endorses them and specifically directs you there. That makes them official. What they aren't, are mandatory. Of course, nothing in 40K is mandatory, it is all just a framework for play.

The Rules Boyz don't exist anymore. You have one person centrally responsible for answering the emailed questions, who was specifically chose for this task. He has access to the design studio to validate answers as necessary. When the guys that make the rules appoint someone to speak for them and publicly back that person, I think it is ludicrous to ignore him because you had a bad experience with an old version of the system that no longer exists.

The only difference between an answer from the email address and the FAQ's is availability. You can validate what someone is claiming from a FAQ instantly with internet access. You have to wait for an email response to validate someone else's emailed answer. If FAQ's are taken as canon in games and tournaments, there is no reason that emailed answers that have been validated should not be as well.

You are correct, sir. I had forgotten about that change. Since I'm feeling lazy, would you mind rewriting number 2 for me?

2. Askyourquestion@games-workshop.com and FAQ answers are both official sources of rules answers from Games Workshop, but they are not mandatory to use.
-Many tournaments and casual games adopt these official answers as canon, but they are not mandatory. You and your opponent can always agree to ignore the answers given by the official sources and use whatever answers you come up with yourself.

Posters should read all relevant rules before posing a query.



G

Kaaihn wrote:Validating an email means you yourself send an email to the address listed on the website asking the question. When you get the answer back, you have validation.

No Offence, but you ask 3 times you get 4 different answers back. They are not reliable, and too easily forged. They should not be admissible.

FAQs should be considered official as they are written by the developers and can quickly settle disputes.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:FAQs should be considered official as they are written by the developers and can quickly settle disputes.

G

Apart from the ones that were written by Yakface and co. because the Devs are too lazy to do it themselves? If we use them, why not use the INAT FAQ?

Emails and words spoken over the phone are not official.

They are not published or publicated material, its as simple as that. I could talk to a rep from GW who says that the new SW battleforce is only gonna be $20 and it includes 30 marines, 6 dreadnought and 2 Land Raiders....

does that make it offical? no.

if they printed it in White Dwarf, it WOULD be official, and you bet I would take advantage of that.

5. Rule terms are not defined in the dictionary.

i.e. just because onlinedictionary.com says that a word means X does not stop that word being defined to mean Y in the rules. ETA e.g. "Hull"

We could also do with some basic points of rule interpretation:
-specific > general
-what permissive rule set means
-break no rule!
-a quick grounding in formal logic and why it's not always the same as grammar.

I think he's talking about GW FAQs only. Other FAQs could be used as evidence of reasoning or how other parties looked at the issue.

Because they were written by the developers and they know the intent. This why the documentation states these deal with "grey" areas. Unless Yuri Geller is here to help us in YMDC we don't know intent most of the time.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Because they were written by the developers

Apart from the ones that were written by Yakface and co. because the Devs are too lazy yaddda yadda yadda

I don't think we should ever presume to know intent ourselves, and as such it has no place in the discussion. Saying "I would actually play it this way" is completely different to "Obviously it SHOULD be played this way".

Also, until such times as those email answers are:
a) Unforgeable
b) added to the FAQs/publicly available
c) FAQs become official (since they ARE answers from the Dev team)
d) they answer EVERY question

They should be discounted.

Especially since that is seemingly only an American resource, and, as we all know, GW doesn't really care about the US market compared to the UK one.

Iorek wrote:1a. Don't just say someone is wrong without saying why.
- I just see this often. It can be time consuming, but make the effort to explain your position.

I think that this addendum should be changed:

1a. Don't say that someone is wrong, instead you explain why you think their opinion is wrong. Criticize the opinion, not the person.

I'd like to add one: Don't quote entire posts. Only quote when quotations are required, and otherwise just address the poster who you are replying to.

And I'll add another one: After writing out your post, leave it for ten minutes before clicking the submit button. Before submitting, give it another read through to catch any spelling and grammar errors, and perhaps make adjustments for style as well.

EDIT: Except for the ones blah blah what Gwar said...

"After writing out your post, leave it for ten minutes before clicking the submit button. Before submitting, give it another read through to catch any spelling and grammar errors, and perhaps make adjustments for style as well. "

- No way, Jose.

I point blank refuse this ludicrous suggestion. Some of us wireless interwebs/post from work etc...we don't have ten mins of thumb-twiddling before answering.

Nurglitch wrote:

Iorek wrote:1a. Don't just say someone is wrong without saying why.
- I just see this often. It can be time consuming, but make the effort to explain your position.

I think that this addendum should be changed:

1a. Don't say that someone is wrong, instead you explain why you think their opinion is wrong. Criticize the opinion, not the person.

I'd like to add one: Don't quote entire posts. Only quote when quotations are required, and otherwise just address the poster who you are replying to.

And I'll add another one: After writing out your post, leave it for ten minutes before clicking the submit button. Before submitting, give it another read through to catch any spelling and grammar errors, and perhaps make adjustments for style as well.

Quoting the entire post because I am.

Also, saying "You are wrong because..." is fine, and is exactly what 1a is saying to do. If you take personal offence at "You are wrong because..." you need to GTFO the internet.

Demogerg wrote:Emails and words spoken over the phone are not official.

They are not published or publicated material, its as simple as that. I could talk to a rep from GW who says that the new SW battleforce is only gonna be $20 and it includes 30 marines, 6 dreadnought and 2 Land Raiders....

does that make it offical? no.

if they printed it in White Dwarf, it WOULD be official, and you bet I would take advantage of that.

By that token, why should anything written or discussed in an online forum have any meaning at all? At what point is our word worth more than anyone elses, or less?

Look, I can understand what you guys are trying to do here...but I think it's a bad idea. These restrictions are only going to limit discussion and participation and allow for a few choice members to simply brow-beat other posters. So it'll be pretty much like it is now, only worse, and now we'll have even fewer people bothering to post questions and have meaningful (or sometimes not) discussions about the function of the game.

Even now I can see how these new rules are being pushed into a specific mold to suit specific opinions or style of play. Mods, just stop it now, you are only going to make things worse.

Gwar! wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:Because they were written by the developers

Apart from the ones that were written by Yakface and co. because the Devs are too lazy yaddda yadda yadda

C'mon Gwar, they're approved and signed off by the developers, which is the same for our purposes as writing them.

Polonius wrote:C'mon Gwar, they're approved and signed off by the developers, which is the same for our purposes as writing them.

But it is not. I highly doubt they read them anyway, considering the quality of the FAQs GW do write (Space Marines anyone?) I am surprised they read the ones they write.

Elessar wrote:EDIT: Except for the ones blah blah what Gwar said...

"After writing out your post, leave it for ten minutes before clicking the submit button. Before submitting, give it another read through to catch any spelling and grammar errors, and perhaps make adjustments for style as well. "

- No way, Jose.

I point blank refuse this ludicrous suggestion. Some of us wireless interwebs/post from work etc...we don't have ten mins of thumb-twiddling before answering.

Wow... then do us all a favor and simply don't post. How rude can you get?

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Wow... then do us all a favor and simply don't post. How rude can you get?

How on Earth is that a Rude post? It is a Ludicrous suggestion.