Are people so interested in bickering ad nauseum about the rules that they actually feel the need to discount solicited input from GW as to how the rules work just to keep the argument alive?

Brice

It's nothing to do with being interested in bickering...

I can't speak for everyone, but I personally discount GW's 'Rulezboyz' due to having several situations over the years (before I gave up on asking them) where answers that I have received have been completely different to answers that an opponent has received.

There's simply no way to take their answers seriously, because they mean absolutely nothing.

Well there's the thing, there are no more rulesboys, and the replacement customer service seems to be consistent.

Again, a GW Rulezboy responded to one of my friends on a question about Eldar fleet+assaulting out of moving transports.

He said yes when conventional wisdom said no.

Then GW FAQ's the issue 2 months later.

They said no.

So yes, solicited input from GW has been pretty un-useful.

sourclams wrote:Again, a GW Rulezboy responded to one of my friends on a question about Eldar fleet+assaulting out of moving transports.

He said yes when conventional wisdom said no.

Then GW FAQ's the issue 2 months later.

They said no.

So yes, solicited input from GW has been pretty un-useful.

thats probably why theyre killing the rulezboyz.

sourclams:

Yes, a GW rulesboy answered a question falsely. If there are no more rulesboys and there is a new customer service for answering rules, should you not give it a try, if only to justify your opinion? What's the worst that could happen?

It would be helpful if you could corroborate the results that others have gotten (though switch the questions around so they're not blatant copy-pastes), so we test whether the new service is an improvement on the old.

Here's the address:

askyourquestion@games-workshop.com

Insaniak,

Except that an answer provided by a GW employee, who's sole job it is to answer rules related questions, is certainly more valid than one that doesn't carry their stamp of approval, and certainly for everyone that reads the ruling the issues should be laid to rest, at least until GW changes the ruling through another means. Moving this service to an e-mail based format is only going to serve to make it better and more conistent.

Brice

BBeale wrote:Except that an answer provided by a GW employee, who's sole job it is to answer rules related questions,

That's just it: is that their actual job?

I've seen nothing to indicate that the change is anything other than a name change. Is it still just some guy in mail order answering questions, or someone with actual rules knowledge, and actual authority to make judgement calls?

Moving this service to an e-mail based format is only going to serve to make it better and more conistent.

It's been email based before. It was snail-mail based before that. And it wasn't any more consistent.

insaniak:

Might I suggest that given the consistency of answers given by GW's rules support service is an empirical matter, it might be worth testing, so you're not just relying on established prejudice?

At the end of the day we now have clear, unambiguous answers to issues that we formerly did not. How is that a bad thing? Insaniak, send them an e-mail. If you get a different set of answers, then you have something to gripe/be mistrustful about. Until then, these issues have been dealt with as far as the sommunity should be concerned.

Brice

BBeale wrote:At the end of the day we now have clear, unambiguous answers to issues that we formerly did not. How is that a bad thing? Insaniak, send them an e-mail. If you get a different set of answers, then you have something to gripe/be mistrustful about. Until then, these issues have been dealt with as far as the sommunity should be concerned.

Brice

What people need are clear, unambiguous, authoritative and consistent answers. What reason do I have as a fellow player to consider a possibly either edited or falsified e-mail as a legitimate answer to a rules question? Even if a given message isn't a fake, there's still no indication what method was used to answer the question.

A certain other miniature wargaming company has a forum where official answers are given for everyone to see, and answers are posted by the head rules guy and his minions. It's amazing how that eliminates problems like this in their game.

As some people guessed, yes, I completely made up that E-mail I posted on the last page.

It was my way of proving a point that not only are these "rulings" in no way binding until they are published, but they can also be faked by anyone.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:As some people guessed, yes, I completely made up that E-mail I posted on the last page.

It was my way of proving a point that not only are these "rulings" in no way binding until they are published, but they can also be faked by anyone.

BYE

We are not trying to test whether or not you can cheat. I'm sure you can whether it's by moving your models an extra 1/2" or by creating fake emails. So rest assured, even if the GW customer service is clear and consistent you will still be able to abuse the game in myriad ways.

Wait. Because someone (generic someone, not HBMC who isn't trying to pass off his "ruling" as real) might be unethical enough (not to mention pathetic enough) to falsify an e-mail from GW, we shouldn't rely on this new system? And why is it important that we know the method used to reach the decision? We're rarely given that information in the FAQs. Why start requiring it now? It should be good enough that GW says "this is how the rule is applied."

Brice

olympia wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:As some people guessed, yes, I completely made up that E-mail I posted on the last page.

It was my way of proving a point that not only are these "rulings" in no way binding until they are published, but they can also be faked by anyone.

BYE

We are not trying to test whether or not you can cheat. I'm sure you can whether it's by moving your models an extra 1/2" or by creating fake emails. So rest assured, even if the GW customer service is clear and consistent you will still be able to abuse the game in myriad ways.

I think the point he is trying to make is, say you produce a printout of an e-mail saying that Deffrolla's can't be used to Tank Shock. At the same time I produce one saying they can. How can you prove with any validity, on the spot in the middle of a game, that mine is the doctored e-mail and not yours?

If consistency can be established as a fact for this new service, then you'll know if someone is trying to pass off a doctored e-mail simply by virtue of the fact that the answer differs from the one that you have.

Brice

BBeale wrote:If consistency can be established as a fact for this new service, then you'll know if someone is trying to pass off a doctored e-mail simply by virtue of the fact that the answer differs from the one that you have.

Brice

But how can you prove it.

Why would you ever have to prove it? If you're playing a casual game, walk away. If this is a GW sponsored tournament, the rules judges will provide the same ruling, assuming that consistency is no longer an issue under this new system.

Brice

BBeale wrote:Why would you ever have to prove it? If you're playing a casual game, walk away. If this is a GW sponsored tournament, the rules judges will provide the same ruling, assuming that consistency is no longer an issue under this new system.

Brice

My point is, if you bring a printout and I bring a printout, unless the judge e-mails and gets a response right away it's going to be their judgment call on which e-mail is real and which is not. Unless GW compiles these questions and gives them to every TO before the thing (which would be a good thing).

Even more realistically, I play Orks and you don't. I have a doctored e-mail and you have nothing. How can you dispute my printed proof?

Plus, if it's just one guy answering all the e-mails of course it's gong to be consistent, he's the only one answering our questions, but GW could turn around tomorrow and FAQ it the other way.

Sure, the e-mails that GW send out can be consistent, but there isn't anything stopping people from doctoring them to suit their needs. Like I said, the best we could hope for is that GW releases a monthly PDF of the most FAQ and marks it official, that would be awesome.

mattyboy22 wrote:My point is, if you bring a printout and I bring a printout, unless the judge e-mails and gets a response right away it's going to be their judgment call on which e-mail is real and which is not. Unless GW compiles these questions and gives them to every TO before the thing (which would be a good thing)

Just on a note, there were 3 minutes between me e-mailing them and getting my reply, so in theory the judge could e-mail and get a response basically right away.

Matty,

Or, we as a community can compile the answers to our questions. That serves to provide a check for consistency and against duplicity. This is a great tool if it works. And I would assume that if GW is serious about consistency TOs will get some sort of guidance on these sorts of hot-topic rules issues.

On a related note, I don't understand the position that these rulings are not binding till there's a FAQ. GW is providing us with tool to determine how the rules work. If someone publishes a ruling on this site (or anywhere else), anyone who reads it has notice of GW's position on the rule. To play contra to that ruling (assuming it's not a house rules situation) is cheating once you have notice. Simple.

Drunkspleen,

My reply took about as long as well.

Brice

Nurglitch wrote:Well there's the thing, there are no more rulesboys, and the replacement customer service seems to be consistent.

'Consistent' is not a synonym for 'correct'. For all we know, the answers are consistenly wrong.

that is easy for you to say. The new email system of answering leaves a paper trail. Anyone who would sleaze out and edit an answer is someone I would REFUSE to play.

G

BBeale wrote:At the end of the day we now have clear, unambiguous answers to issues that we formerly did not. How is that a bad thing?

What we have are clear, unambiguous answers from someone who's job description appears to be 'Customer Service Specialist' rather than 'GW Games Developer' or 'Offical Rules Adjudicator'...

Not a bad thing. Just a useless thing.

Insaniak, send them an e-mail. If you get a different set of answers, then you have something to gripe/be mistrustful about.

I'm not griping about it. Nor am I mistrustful of it. Just pointing out why I think it's flawed.

I just don't see it as being in any way useful for anything other than casual games... which are the games that don't actually need the service in the first place. Go to a tournament and show your opponent a printed email to prove yourself correct on a rules issue and see how far it gets you.

As an aside, WotC has a system on their forums where games have a nominated rules person who has a proven level of knowledge of the rules, and is considered trustworthy enough to give accurate answers to rules questions. And even then, if his answers cover an ambiguous issue, even if he's checked the ruling with the guy who writes the rules, they aren't considered official until they're included in an FAQ. Why? Simply because in a competitive environment, 'Some guy on the internet said...' just doesn't cut it. It's not a rule until it's in an official publication.

It doesn't matter what GW choose to call their Rulzboy, he's still going to be disregarded by those who want official answers that their opponent can't argue with or claim are just made up.

I'm sure we could all send them the same E-mail tomorrow and get the same responce 100 times. Doesn't change the fact that if you walk into a store tomorrow with a printed out E-mail that shows a differing point of view to the one held by the person you're playing, then that E-mail means nothing. To that person, it's just an E-mail. It holds no meaning.

As insaniak said, it's nice to have this 'service', but it is ultimateley useless. It's not official in any way that can be said to be binding. Until it's published, it doesn't mean anything.

BYE

Of course it means something. It is, after all, a response from GW resolving a rules issue. You can't stick your head in the sand and say it doesn't count. It's correct until GW says otherwise. It's certainly more "official" than any conclusion reached without the benefit of its input.

Brice

Except that it really doesn't. The write-in-rules-service has existed for a long time, this is simply a new and arguably better format. That doesn't change that their answers have been worthless in the past.

If this service does serve to expedite the FAQ process then it will certainly prove to have some worth, and over time people may begin to pay attention to the email sheets. Until then, however, it's simply an informed opinion.

No, an informed opinion is a conclusion that we reach on this site. This is something more than that. As far as any of us should be concerned, anyone refusing to play in accord with the rules as stated in one of these solicited responses is cheating.

Brice

Says you.

How is it not? You have a ruling from GW. There's a point where you're being contrary just to be contrary. . .

Brice

Actually, you have an email that may or not be a final ruling.

What we have is a piece of printer paper with some words on it that might or might not have come from John Spencer, who might or might not be operating in an official capacity that affects how we will have to use rules in 40k, casual games and tournament settings. Until they're compiled into a document with the GW stamp of approval that is easily referable and verifiable we don't actually have much of anything except somebody else's opinion.

Just because it comes from GW doesn't mean it's correct. Look at White Dwarf battle reports. By their own admission they don't really need to refer to the rules because everybody just knows "how it's meant to be played".

John Spencer's rulings are about as useful as Obama's presidential edicts; they might give you an official opinion, they might allow you to predict future trends, but until the President-elect is sworn in as President, they have no official weight.

Fabius,

Whether or not it is a final ruling is irrelevant. It's a ruling and it's from GW.

Sourclams,

The fact that you insist on operating under the idea that 1) part of John Spencer's job isn't to consistently and unambiguously answer rules question on behalf of GW, and 2) everyone who produces an e-mail from him has falsified it in some way says a lot more about you and how you play this game than it does about this new system.

I would never cheat at a game of toy soldiers and I don't go around expecting other people to do so either--people that are pathetic enough to cheat at a game of 40k are the exception, not the rule. If someone is going to falsify an e-mail, why wouldn't they falsify a FAQ pdf? It would certainly be just as simple to do. "Yeah, this is the 'updated' version of the PDF." I don't carry my laptop to tournaments, so the same barriers to verification exist with FAQs that exist with rules queries under this system.

Whether you agree with a ruling or not is also irrelevant. GW writes the rules. When someone in an official capacity at GW says this is the rule, it is. Your opinion at that point is moot.

In all seriousness, if one of these hot-topic rules issues comes up and someone across the table says, "Hey, I had the same question, this is the response GW sent me regarding it", would you play by the ruling or not (assuming you didn't agree with it). I certainly think you should, and I have pretty strong feelings about anyone who wouldn't.

Brice

BBeale wrote:How is it not? You have a ruling from GW. There's a point where you're being contrary just to be contrary. . .

Brice

Because I've got a ruling from that Red Shirt over there that says the opposite, another Red Shirt over here says yet a third thing, and the Red Shirt who's having his day off today didn't agree with anyone else either. That's why the FAQ is what counts. Its the trump card. Its the final be-all-end-all of rulings. That's what we have faith in, that's what we all have access to no matter when we ask, or who we ask. If someone cares enough to hack the GW website and replace the FAQ... more power to them. At that point they deserve to have their week in the sun, so to speak, and have the ruling go their way. It'll help them make it through their jail time.

As for assuming everyone out there would fake an email... No I don't, and I don't think anyone else has either. What they're saying is that with flip-flops between sub-official rulings and the FAQ release, (and lets face it, most stores have at least one) the guys who would fake an email this isn't good enough for them.

Rulesboyz should be used as a way to settle disputes when both sides are being truculent. Their accuracy is less important than getting on with your bloody game.

Do we have anything *official* from GW that states that Spencers answers are meant to be taken as official rulings?
Saying 'you can email questions here' isn't enough; because they also say we can ask questions an the local store.
The Redshirt is *also* a GW employee, and part of their job is to answer rules questions. And I don't think I have ever spent more than an hour in a store without having to correct a Redshirt on a rules issue. (not a complaint, I am just more of a geek I guess)



And there is an issue of inherrent fairness. The reason rules are valid, is because everyone has access to them and thus can operate from the same level.
You can buy the books, you can download the FAQ. But I have no idea what questions you are asking Spencer. This inherrent 'secrecy' is what makes them near useless. We show up, and I have used the rules made publically available to create my army. You show up with the public rules, and your *private correspondence* that invalidates some of my army choices.
We are now playing two separate games.

If GW intended(or cared) to make these ruling 'official', they would announce it as such, and could *easiliy* give Spencer a place on the website for a FAQ column.

WoTC did such a thing with Star Wars RPG; and it worked fine. But to try and use private correspondence to change the rules for an entire game, isn't right.

And that assumes the answers can be considered reliable.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Rulesboyz should be used as a way to settle disputes when both sides are being truculent. Their accuracy is less important than getting on with your bloody game.

And when the same question comes up in the next game? And the one after that? See where this goes? Making assumptions about the validity of others' interpretations can change a person's entire army list, forever, if those people consistently play at the same venue with the same group of friends like most of us do.

Deffrolla Battlewagons, for example, go from being very powerful to virtual suck depending on whether or not we decide to trust this individual's answer. GW employees are wrong *all the time*. This is the part that many people take exception to. Go look at WD battle reports, the email about "eldar can assault out of moving transports", and all the other inconsistencies. How is this guy any different than the White Dwarf chief editor? Or the customer service rep for a sales region? Or some other faceless guy on the phone? Just because GW says doesn't mean it's how it is, because GW says different things at different times.

Bigger picture.

Well, if the same question crops up, you have an answer, so why bother asking it? Just stick with the ruling given until an FAQ comes out.

This is my problem with over competitive players. Me? I tend to discuss likely problems with my opponent before the game, and if anything comes up during it, a quick discussion and it's cleared up.

it looks like a step in the right direction.

G

mattyboy22 wrote:My point is, if you bring a printout and I bring a printout, unless the judge e-mails and gets a response right away it's going to be their judgment call on which e-mail is real and which is not.

Even if they could get an e-mail right away, it would still be their judgment call as it's their tournament and TO's always have final say in their tournaments.

mattyboy22 wrote:Unless GW compiles these questions and gives them to every TO before the thing (which would be a good thing)

If they could do that, why couldn't they take the less effort it would require to just post an FAQ rather than e-mail, either individually or mass, people running tournaments. That way everyone would benefit.

As it is, I see this as no more official than if I walked up to Phil Kelly or any other Design Team member and asked them a rules question: The answer(note: NOT a ruling) to my question is only available to me and not published for the public at large with an official stamp of approval. Until published in an FAQ somewhere, those answers are still only an opinion, even if highly valued or "more authoritative".

Platuan4th wrote:Even if they could get an e-mail right away, it would still be their judgment call as it's their tournament and TO's always have final say in their tournaments.

That, and the fact that Tournament packages usually list the Rulebooks, Codexes and FAQs as valid rules sources. I've never seen a tournement package that included emails from the Rulzboyz as a valid part of the ruleset.

if you are playing a certain way then someone convinces you to change that is powerful. The email answers could simply help people playing friendly games. It does not always have to come down to what is valid in a tournament environment. Step back and see the forest not a clump of trees. Really.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:The email answers could simply help people playing friendly games.

...who generally don't need the help.

The vast majority of rules issues in friendly games are resolved by either a quick discussion and agreement, or a dice roll (and if you play against regular opponents, followed by the addition of a house rule to cover the situation if it comes up again).

If your 'friendly' opponent isn't flexible enough to accept either of those two resolution methods, I can guarantee that they're also not going to be the sort of player who will accept your word that the email printout you're waving at them is genuine.

No matter the apparent consistency of GW's responses (or otherwise), my personal opinion is not to take the word of an unofficial internet forum as any indication of GW's answers.

You can always check the consistency yourself by emailing GW directly, and then judge the relevance of its corroboration (or lack thereof) with the opinions expressed here.

insaniak wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:The email answers could simply help people playing friendly games.

...who generally don't need the help.

The vast majority of rules issues in friendly games are resolved by either a quick discussion and agreement, or a dice roll (and if you play against regular opponents, followed by the addition of a house rule to cover the situation if it comes up again).

If your 'friendly' opponent isn't flexible enough to accept either of those two resolution methods, I can guarantee that they're also not going to be the sort of player who will accept your word that the email printout you're waving at them is genuine.

Not true at all. I have seen many times when players went the ruling of a neutral third party to get on with the game. Not everyone is a veteran or has face to face access with an arbitrary rules expert. When I first started playing it was in a small town and before the Internet was what is now. Many people play mostly for fun and the email answer is an easy way to check how a rule works. I'm not saying the email answer is always right but that it is an easy way for some people to clarify a question they have and reach an agreement. Simple really.

G

Nurglitch wrote:You can always check the consistency yourself by emailing GW directly, and then judge the relevance of its corroboration (or lack thereof) with the opinions expressed here.

I don't think anyone is wholeheartedly arguing the "consistency" issue anymore (if they are indeed tracking the emails in a database, then over time I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that they will be more consistent). The bigger issue for everyone seems to be the "authoritative" issue. And no matter how consistent their rulings are, without the authority to back them up, "consistency" is a moot point. So chiming in every ten posts or so about empirically verifying the consistency is kinda pointless.

why bother asking a question if you don't plan to use it settle a dispute involving the rules?

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Not true at all. I have seen many times when players went the ruling of a neutral third party to get on with the game.

...in which case they now have their ruling, and still have no reason to email GW about it...

you missed my point entirely.

G

dvdhwk:

Not at all, particularly since people against the authority of GW's new email customer service seem to be against its authority on the grounds that the previous service was inconsistent. Consistency, where answers to questions about rules are concerned, does hint at an authority.

BBeale wrote:Of course it means something.

All it means is that someone from GW's customer service team sent you an E-mail. What if you're playing a pickup game at a GW store, and the Red Shirt disagrees with that ruling. He's a GW employee disagreeing with another GW employee? Do we now roll to see who is more right?

These E-mails are pointless and meaningless until they are collated and published in an official format. Until such time as that happens, they are little more than a novelty.

BYE

Or until GW says they are official.

G

insaniak wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:The email answers could simply help people playing friendly games.

...who generally don't need the help.
...

yeah,
So GW seems to have put a more rebust email rules system in place.

Sometime a rule interpretation can split two reasonable people during a friendly game, It can seem like you/they are trying to get an advantage.. and your not, you just don't see eye to eye on the rules and most times both players will happyly dice off to resolve.

with the email you can get a ruling and next game both people don't think the other is trying to get a advantage... so it helps friendly gamers too.

Also We'll see lots of heads ups on rules issues before games via awarness in forums etc... 'oh did you see how they ruled on that...'

But what I see now are the people who were arguing on the losing side of the email ruling, denounce the email rulings to keep their advantages... and that's just sad...

Green Blow Fly wrote:Or until GW says they are official.

G

Exactly... which I think will be real good...

Panic...

Panic wrote:But what I see now are the people who were arguing on the losing side of the email ruling, denounce the email rulings to keep their advantages... and that's just sad...

No. What's sad is people who believe that this is the end all be all when it comes to answering a rules question. It's not. It's no better than rolling a D6. So what if the ruling sided with you this time. There's no guarantee that it's official or if it's correct and that makes it worthless.

Nurglitch wrote:dvdhwk:

Not at all, particularly since people against the authority of GW's new email customer service seem to be against its authority on the grounds that the previous service was inconsistent. Consistency, where answers to questions about rules are concerned, does hint at an authority.

No, the crux of most people's argument against the authority is that GW has not said that email responses are official unlike rulebooks, codexes, FAQ's, which they say are official.

Additionally consistency and authoritativeness are independent factors. Being more consistent doesn't lend itself to being more authoritative by definition. Nor does being more authoritative lend itself to being more consistent by definition. Look at a number of authoritative FAQ's (esp. regarding Space Marines and various chapters). There are inconsistencies, yet the FAQ's are nonetheless authoritative. Granted being both authoritative AND consistent is important and is what we're all looking for. But their not necessarily linked.

If anything, you can link consistency to reliability and predictability. Many people are arguing against their reliability and predictability, which are also independent of authoritativeness.

dvdhwk:

Except that GW is the umbrella group for the putative authority, and consistency from one of its branches can be taken as evidence that the answers provided by that branch are consistent with any answers that might be provided by the authoritative branch, thereby being authoritative.

So yes, in the matter of whether GW's new rules query service is authoritative, consistency is a dependent factor.

Platuan4th wrote:
Even if they could get an e-mail right away, it would still be their judgment call as it's their tournament and TO's always have final say in their tournaments.

Yes, I agree but I was countering his validity to bringing one to a tourney.

Platuan4th wrote:If they could do that, why couldn't they take the less effort it would require to just post an FAQ rather than e-mail, either individually or mass, people running tournaments. That way everyone would benefit.

I agree, I think it would be great if they threw up something monthly on the website with official answers to the most FAQ's.

Platuan4th wrote:As it is, I see this as no more official than if I walked up to Phil Kelly or any other Design Team member and asked them a rules question: The answer(note: NOT a ruling) to my question is only available to me and not published for the public at large with an official stamp of approval. Until published in an FAQ somewhere, those answers are still only an opinion, even if highly valued or "more authoritative".

I agree, but half the people here don't

Panic wrote:But what I see now are the people who were arguing on the losing side of the email ruling, denounce the email rulings to keep their advantages... and that's just sad...

I don't even really know what the argument's about, so I couldn't care either way which 'side' is the 'winner' in the argument. At the moment all I see is an E-Mail from GW customer services where a Customer Service Rep has voiced his opinion of a rule. I don't see an official ruling published by GW.

BYE

Nurglitch wrote:Except that GW is the umbrella group for the putative authority, and consistency from one of its branches can be taken as evidence that the answers provided by that branch are consistent with any answers that might be provided by the authoritative branch, thereby being authoritative.

That's a wonderful bit of circular logic you've got there.

"If they say the same thing over and over, they are there fore consistent, and therefore official, therefore their answers are official, therefore they are right."

I cannot believe you would actualy subscribe to a line of thinking like this Nurgy.

BYE

H.B.M.C:

That's because I don't subscribe to that line of thinking. That's just bullshiat that you made up.

I think that consistency in the new service answering rules queries by email is evidence that the answers they give are official. That's it. I believe I've pointed out that I don't think one of the answers I received was right. And I've pointed out that consistency is simply evidence. You know how evidence works, right?

Now why do I think that consistency in replies would count as evidence? It's pretty simple, if the answers are consistent, it's because the people answering the emails have an official Q&A wiki where they look up the answer and copy-paste it into emails. If the question does not appear on the wiki, then they add it and a designer answers it.

Rather than release an official FAQ, I would hypothesize that GW does this because the moment they release an FAQ people complain that the FAQ doesn't answer their questions, or that it answers them badly, or whatever new brand of idiocy prevents them from figuring out the right answer. This way they can track the questions that come in, as a note for amending the text of the 6th edition, provide consistent and official answers, and provide the kind of rules support that the community has been demanding for a long while.

If they have an official Q&A wiki, cut out the middle man and post it as an FAQ. There's absolutely no reason players should have to shout into a bucket and wait for the echoes every time a common rules ambiguity needs to be addressed.

As to the last bit about GW not wanting to print FAQs because people complain they're not exhaustive enough, well, you just made that up. It's not even logically consistent with your previous hypothesis about a rules wiki. It's not the consistency that people have a problem with. I can consistently take a crap at 7:00 am every morning. That doesn't make me an authority on the subject.

Nurglitch:

Consistency =/= Authoritativeness

They are independent of one another.

As I stated, GW's FAQ's have at times been inconsistent, they are nevertheless authoritative. Both elements are good and to be desired, but they are not the same. One does NOT lead to the other.

Mod in:

This thread has gone well off the original topic and turned into an argument about whether email answers are authoritative as a source of rulings.

I am going to lock the thread to save further OT argument.

If you wish to continue the discussion, I suggest you make a poll about whether players are prepared to take emails as authoritative. Then other users will see by the topic title what is under discussion.

Mod out: