John Spencer?


Do they hold any weight? Is it official, are they/he willing to post them on a board like those guys at privateer press? Is it more of same glossing over that we got with the rulzboyz, which were notorious for giving out different and conflicting answers to the same question?

And how quick do they answer your questions on email? I sent one in last night, to test the waters.

John Spencer is Yak's evil twin brother.

G

Well, citing them is difficult. They aren't publicly posted, which means you have to believe your opponent when he waves a piece of paper at you and says "John Spencer said so." At least with the FAQs, you can check online later. And no, there is no suggestion that these will be collected/posted at some point.

according to most folk here anything outside of a printable FAQ is worth nothing.

Although Spencer isn't much more valuable for proving/disproving rules than just having your gaming group vote on an issue, his answers have been consistent and replicable.

As Yakface and the INAT FAQ updates have shown, it's pretty foolish to ignore his responses since he is more or less the closest we'll ever get to a living FAQ document.

agreed sourclams. unfortunately though i think we're in the minority here...

Most people around here seem to heap scorn on Mr. Spencer or ignore him outright, which is unfortunate

sourclams is correct: John Spencer's opinions are consistent and replicable. If someone waves a piece of paper under your nose during a game, or posts something on a forum, and attributes it to Mr. Spencer, then it's easy enough to check. The last question I sent took a couple of weeks to be answered though, so he may be working through a backlog at the moment.

What would be good would be if Mr. Spencer supplied a method, or at least a proof, along with his answers so that people would have a problem solving method to apply to any new problems that crop up, or with which to catch mistakes made in previous rulings.

Nurglitch wrote:
What would be good would be if Mr. Spencer supplied a method, or at least a proof, along with his answers so that people would have a problem solving method to apply to any new problems that crop up, or with which to catch mistakes made in previous rulings.

Okay, thats pretty much what I was hoping to hear.
And I won't keep my eyes peeled on getting a response anytime soon.

And... as an aside I secretly believe his reasoning's for whatever rulings he's been doing (deffrolla, eldritch storm) are because he knows what was intended, meaning, there may not be any proof to be found.

The next phase is to see if we can get him to publish :p Or.... get someone to collect from everyone else their questions and answers and post them somewhere and to ensure accuracy, we can have a honor poll system, where people vote on if they got the same response from him, so we can make sure that we eliminate fake emails.. Course this is just a thought.


I like this "John Spencer is Yakface's evil twin" .... that's awesome.... will the truth be revealed?!

I would say that John Spencer is as reliable as anyone else on this board except for the fact that he works for GW. Anyone on this board can make a ruling or rule interpretaion, but it won't be official or accepted by all others. Since John works for GW he is a little more official and reliable, but its just one person's interpretation of the rules in the end.

Sazzlefrats wrote:I like this "John Spencer is Yakface's evil twin" .... that's awesome.... will the truth be revealed?!

If someone can get a picture of Mr. Spencer, I could confirm.

Sazzlefrats wrote:
And... as an aside I secretly believe his reasoning's for whatever rulings he's been doing (deffrolla, eldritch storm) are because he knows what was intended, meaning, there may not be any proof to be found.

And that's the crux of it. Things like Deffrolla, PotMS and Smoke Launchers, and Vulkan+Inq allies can be proven pretty easily just by looking at the rules, but based on precedence and balance many do not "feel" it is the way that the rules are meant to be played and that's where the 3rd person point of view comes in as long as it's replicable and consistent, which is exactly the service that Spencer provides.

Platuan4th wrote:

Sazzlefrats wrote:I like this "John Spencer is Yakface's evil twin" .... that's awesome.... will the truth be revealed?!

If someone can get a picture of Mr. Spencer, I could confirm.

Found one.

Lordhat wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

Sazzlefrats wrote:I like this "John Spencer is Yakface's evil twin" .... that's awesome.... will the truth be revealed?!

If someone can get a picture of Mr. Spencer, I could confirm.

Found one.

Hmm... Uncanny...

He looks a bit more like Connery than Yakface, though...

I saw them both at Hooters yesterday.

G

So here's an idea:

Why not compile a FAQ consisting of answers obtained from John Spencer?

That would be a good idea, but again would have to be trusted to be his unaltered word re posted for others.

If someone does get a response that seems to differ from another persons, does John Spencer now get thrown out as old GW and not staying consistant? Or was it simply someone pushing their own agenda and Mr. Spencer actually only ever gave one consistant answer?

Nurglitch wrote:So here's an idea:
Why not compile a FAQ consisting of answers obtained from John Spencer?

http://www.leasticoulddo.com/comic/20090126 for the humor.

http://plagiarism.umf.maine.edu/valid.html for the basics of being a credible source.

The primary problem with any of the 'GW e-mails' is the inability to answer who, where and when. Specifically, we can't verify where the answer was actually found or when it was even made, let alone any point of reference or explination as to why the presumed author came to his conclusion.

The primary problem with INAT is, in many people's minds, where and why? Specifically, where is the citation for their interpretation and whether the resource biased in some way.

The GW, direct from the websites tends to mostly be credible by its overwhelming who despite sometimes very weak what and how. Specifically, they're the ones who made the rules and tend to be universally accepted as final arbiters.

Marius Xerxes:

Well, the thing about John Spencer is that if you doubt someone is quoting him, you can check. While he lacks any explanation or proof of validity for his rulings, those rulings are consistent.

Compiling his answers means, hopefully, lowering his workload and making them more accessible to the community, and gives us a common resource to work from. It's not ideal, but it seems to be a step up from the current situation.

Whats the best way to collect John Spencer rulings/replies? I suppose one could set up an email account for people to send them to?

And, by doing so, could we possibly force GW into making his rulings "official"? If enough people play by his rulings, then do they become official simply by "that's just how it's played" ? (which is the attitude of GW towards their rules anyway)

There's plenty of John Spencer's rulings that have been posted in this forum. For convenience, any thread beyond two pages probably has at least one person posting Mr. Spencer's ruling on the subject.

I'd suggest writing an article about it, using Dakka Dakka's article system.

Nice to see people saying nice things about me (for once)

I'll clear up a few things:
I don't necessarily rule RAW, but RAI. I try to be clear when this is the case, but I get a lot of emails in a week and have the rest of my job to do.
I try to be consistent, and we even have an internal database to help with that.
I have change sides on certain arguments due to new information being pointed out.
I do occasionally make mistakes (twice I can think of on rules emails).
I have been super busy since Christmas and just started working on emails from this week.
I am not (to my knowledge) Yakface's evil twin
I am trying to get my answers to the UK to help with FAQs.
I look nothing like Sean Connery.

Any other questions anyone may have should (obviously) be sent to askyourquestion@games-workshop.com

I am around here from time to time, but don't blow up my PM, please.

John Spencer

i like the idea of keeping replies to build a custom FAQ.
the idea of the email add. for replies would be a nice idea, or maybe dakka could even make a collection, kinda like gallery.


Edit: Welcome to dakka sir

Welcome John.
Nice to see you here.

JohnOSpencer wrote:Nice to see people saying nice things about me (for once)

I'll clear up a few things:
I don't necessarily rule RAW, but RAI. I try to be clear when this is the case, but I get a lot of emails in a week and have the rest of my job to do.
I try to be consistent, and we even have an internal database to help with that.
I have change sides on certain arguments due to new information being pointed out.
I do occasionally make mistakes (twice I can think of on rules emails).
I have been super busy since Christmas and just started working on emails from this week.
I am not (to my knowledge) Yakface's evil twin
I am trying to get my answers to the UK to help with FAQs.
I look nothing like Sean Connery.

Any other questions anyone may have should (obviously) be sent to askyourquestion@games-workshop.com

I am around here from time to time, but don't blow up my PM, please.

John Spencer

Hmm, I don't know if I can trust anything from a 'fresh faced new user'.

JK, in all seriousness though its nice to see that you (and i'm sure other GW employees) keep an eye out on the boards and answer questions like these to clear up misconceptions when they arise.

just as a very random Q here thats bugging me and alot of others :K


if a plasma gun rolls a 1 and overheats (wounding the user) its just a basic wound isnt it? armour saves and FNP are not lost as a result.

JD21290:

I think that's being considered wisely and carefully in another thread.

He is in that thread posting already. I think he put it here in hopes of getting Mr. Spencers attention, nothing more.

Just to keep things consistent, I'm going to try to refrain from answering rules questions when at work. I'm here as me, not as "John Spencer, Customer Service Specialist." Here on Dakka, my posts shouldn't carry any more weight than that of any other user.

John

DAMN John... You are here to be THE voice of reason!!....heh
Joking , any words of wit and wisdom are a help.
The logic behind your (GWs) rulings would be a Great insight though.

Too easy to fake and manipulate the rules wordings from a "mail boy" and in many occations before they have been wrong then a errata or FAQ actually came out. They must be officially published/printed somewhere to be even remotley useful.

Kallbrand wrote:Too easy to fake and manipulate the rules wordings from a "mail boy" and in many occations before they have been wrong then a errata or FAQ actually came out. They must be officially published/printed somewhere to be even remotley useful.

I prefer 'Customer Service Specialist' to 'mail boy'.

JohnOSpencer wrote:

Kallbrand wrote:Too easy to fake and manipulate the rules wordings from a "mail boy" and in many occations before they have been wrong then a errata or FAQ actually came out. They must be officially published/printed somewhere to be even remotley useful.

I prefer 'Customer Service Specialist' to 'mail boy'.

Awww c'mon, can't we just call you John da Troll......

JohnOSpencer:

Hey, good to hear you're posting here as a private individual. I'd recommend putting that disclaimer you posted earlier in the thread into your signature so that people don't spam your PM box, like I was tempted to do at first...

Anyhow, now that you're given us some insight into how you approach rules questions professionally, I was wondering if we could hassle you about method, specifically, what's the method you guys use to solving and checking rulings? I mean, you take a "RAI" approach, but specifically what do you do? What sort of procedure or rules do you apply?

Nurglitch wrote:JohnOSpencer:

Hey, good to hear you're posting here as a private individual. I'd recommend putting that disclaimer you posted earlier in the thread into your signature so that people don't spam your PM box, like I was tempted to do at first...

Anyhow, now that you're given us some insight into how you approach rules questions professionally, I was wondering if we could hassle you about method, specifically, what's the method you guys use to solving and checking rulings? I mean, you take a "RAI" approach, but specifically what do you do? What sort of procedure or rules do you apply?

Procedure, when trying to determine RAI?

Short of calling up Jervis, Allessio, or someone in that crew...RAI comes down to a simple thing: how do I think this should happen, based on my gut feelings.

Centurian99 wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:JohnOSpencer:

Hey, good to hear you're posting here as a private individual. I'd recommend putting that disclaimer you posted earlier in the thread into your signature so that people don't spam your PM box, like I was tempted to do at first...

Anyhow, now that you're given us some insight into how you approach rules questions professionally, I was wondering if we could hassle you about method, specifically, what's the method you guys use to solving and checking rulings? I mean, you take a "RAI" approach, but specifically what do you do? What sort of procedure or rules do you apply?

Procedure, when trying to determine RAI?

Short of calling up Jervis, Allessio, or someone in that crew...RAI comes down to a simple thing: how do I think this should happen, based on my gut feelings.

QFT

Don't listen to him.....John Spencer looks exactly like Sean Connery, especially when he wears his Dallas Cowboy Jersey.


RAI....I think obvious logic works here. Even the Adepticon FAQ uses it. See the answer for Shrike and an infilitrating squad.

There are some instances where RAI is blatantly obvious (Shrike inflatration, Target locks on battlesuits etc) However there are other instances where the RAI isn't so clear, these include the heated Deff rollas Ram, and Mindwar against ork mobs of 10+. Now its difficult to argue RAI upon either of those points either way, as with deff rollas ("a giant spikey metal wheel gets extra damage when ramming my tank makes since to me!") and Mob Rule! has semi-ambiguous wording in it that applies RAW and RAI to both sides of the argument. In instances such as that i do believe Spencer may have "dropped the ball" by perhaps not fully investigating both sides of an argument thoroughly before making a ruling,
Honestly i don't even know why GW has customer Service Representatives answering Rules questions, is it really that hard for those brits in the design studio to make an indepth FAQ that actually answers some of the more difficult questions? (deff rollas on tanks etc)

If it's errata, it's taken as a rules change.

If it's a faq, it's taken as a house rule and can be used as written, ignored or another house rule used.

If someone comes on a board and says so and so said this, I would look at this as nothing different than a suggestion directly from the person that posted.

GW could resolve many of these rules issues if they choose, but for some strange reason they don't. That's their call however stupid I might think that is.

On a personal note, gw doesn't write faq's very well at all, and if it were me, I would not get involved in the process or allowed my name to be used or linked to this process in the slightest. If you do, I hope you can live with the results.

I value my reputation more than some apparently.

Centurian99:

Yes, procedure, as in what set of rules does John use to deduce the intent of the rules from their statement in the text.

For example, if I were to take the following set of symbols, "If A, then B", they could mean anything.

But if I wanted that set of symbols to mean the same thing as the following set of symbols, say, "B, since A", I would need to establish a set of rules to preserve the meaning in the translation.

In introductory logic classes, students are taught to extract the formal or logical structure of arguments from their various expressions in natural languages such as English (and French, and Latin, and German, etc, ad nauseum). Put another way, such introductory students are taught to extract the argument as intended from the argument as written. Sound familiar?

It should be. There is no special secret to such a procedure, we've all learned it in grade school to do arithmetic problems couched in a natural language such as English. The introductory logic class merely teaches students that it can be done in a rigorous and procedural fashion so that they can move onto objective discussions of the logic involved and its properties.

Why this should be supposed to be somehow impossible or even difficult boggles my mind, particularly given the obviously high and incisive intelligences demonstrated by you and other posters. You know how to do it, you've been able to do it since you were small children, and somehow it gets completely ignored when the subject at hand involves something as relatively unimportant as toy soldiers.

The assumption is that GW is a perfectly rational/logical entity, and creates technical rules stemming from that assumption.

It's quite likely that Spencer literally gets some coworkers with free time to sit around the break room table and decide 'Well, I don't think that Vulkan's rule should apply to Sister's of Battle'.

In this situation, Rules As Written becomes worthless because GW doesn't write their rulebooks with technical rigorousness. The codices simply convey the rough idea of how GW thinks you're supposed to play the game. Spencer acts as a codex in microcosm, responding to individual rules questions as they arise without providing the overall structure.

For example:

Lash: RAW you move the models however you want. RAI people don't like it, GW opinion enforces RAW.

GoI: RAW you can escape close combat. RAI people don't like it, GW opinion enforces RAW.

Vulkan: RAW he provides the same bonus to Sisters of Battle. RAI people don't like it, GW opinion also doesn't like it. Deadlock because one person knows what the rules are, and the other person knows how GW intended the rules to be played.

We'll never get a structured flow chart because GW doesn't write technical rules. Hell, they don't even write updated rules. I think the most systematic the approach gets is, "As I interpret the reality of this situation, does it make sense?"

For example, a Boy in a Mob rolling opposed leadership versus Mind War would be at leadership 10 because Weirdboyz get to do the same thing and thus this makes sense. That's a RAI argument that takes precedence over RAW.

Conversely, a Warboss on a bike doesn't get to attach to Snikrot's Kommando squad to infiltrate behind enemy lines because that doesn't make sense. He's big and loud and smoky. That's another RAI argument that takes precedence over RAW.

There is no such assumption that if GW is somehow 'perfect' or even rational (taking rationality as consistency)...

The assumption is actually the negation of such an assumption, that GW is not a perfectly rational angelic being sent by G-d to hand down the Word, and that they're not technical writers either.

Given that assumption, which the evidence of their products suggests is reasonable, we need to proceed in a rigorous and methodical fashion, because they haven't done it for us!

The technique is not limited to well-ordered technical languages. That's kind of the point, since even well-ordered technical languages break down in consistency eventually.

The point is to find out where the consistency breaks down, where inconsistencies, contradictions, loopholes, absences of information, and incoherency take over from a well-ordered structure. It's about mapping out the structure of the rules, fuzzy bits, loose-ends, and all.

Hence the requirement for GW to write their games according to the technical specifications required for genuinely complex topics, such as engineering manuals for example, is moot.

They can write in a colloquial manner, and that's okay because the subject doesn't require much in the way of fine technical expression, and we all know how to deal with that.

Everyone should know, whether something makes sense depends on the criteria defining sense.

As I pointed out earlier, we all know how to find that sense when it is carefully sign-posted for us in arithmetical word-problems, and we should all know how to find that sense when encountering indicative sentences without such convenient sign-posts.

That's why the RAW vs RAI debate is both tedious and embarrassing for our community: both sides are wrong. The intended interpretation of the text is a matter of the text, in other words the RAI is the RAW and vice versa.

Nurglitch wrote:
Why this should be supposed to be somehow impossible or even difficult boggles my mind, particularly given the obviously high and incisive intelligences demonstrated by you and other posters. You know how to do it, you've been able to do it since you were small children, and somehow it gets completely ignored when the subject at hand involves something as relatively unimportant as toy soldiers.

You can't use a deductive argument (which is what you want) to argue for an intuitive result, without massive amounts of verbal chicanery.

John Spencer, do you have relation to The John Spencer Blues Explosion?

(If not, groz is a liar.)

Centurian99:

Could you explain that a little further, because I'm not sure that I follow what you're saying.

He's saying that what you are looking for, i.e. a progressive argument that can follow flow chart logic (if A then B, if B then E, B = C = D) is not going to happen because it all comes down to John going "Well, I don't really think we meant for Deff Rollas to work on Land Raiders".

sourclams:

Well that's false, in particular because proper analysis demonstrates that the impression that "Well, I don't really think we meant for Deff Rollas to work on Land Raiders" is correct. I've shown that, as it is written, the rules do not mean that Deff Rollas can be used to ram Land Raiders. Of course, you don't accept the proof, but that's a matter for another thread or a series of private messages (the topic being what you will accept as proof). Let's not get bogged down in that here, although we really should sit down and chat about that if we're going to continue corresponding.

Anyhow, in more general terms, John has shown that such an opinion as you attribute to Centurian99 is false because John has pointed out that he changes his opinions if he's made an error, or if new information comes to light, and that he's swayed by argument.

He even says that GW (I'm supposing that's who the 'we' refers to) maintains an internal database for the sake of consistency.

So far as a methodology for deriving objectively right or wrong answers is concerned, John Spencer and his crew are more than half way there. Which is why I'm curious about the rest of it, such as his criteria for evidence, how he evaluates arguments for competing interpretations, and all those other little details the sweating of which turns an opinion into the right opinion.

Nurglitch wrote:Well that's false, in particular because proper analysis demonstrates that the impression that "Well, I don't really think we meant for Deff Rollas to work on Land Raiders" is correct. I've shown that, as it is written, the rules do not mean that Deff Rollas can be used to ram Land Raiders. Of course, you don't accept the proof, but that's a matter for another thread or a series of private messages (the topic being what you will accept as proof). Let's not get bogged down in that here, although we really should sit down and chat about that if we're going to continue corresponding.

That's actually incorrect, because proper deductive analysis shows, at best in your favor, that its impossible to determine if deff rollas can be used to ram. The RAW arguments against were absolutely unpersuasive, but that topic is one that calls for rusty spoons to be distributed.

Nurglitch wrote:
Anyhow, in more general terms, John has shown that such an opinion as you attribute to Centurian99 is false because John has pointed out that he changes his opinions if he's made an error, or if new information comes to light, and that he's swayed by argument.

No, John's said that he essentially rules as he thinks was intended, or he rules as RAW, and he doesn't give any real guidelines on when he does which. In essence, he's doing exactly what the INAT FAQ council did, and he's saying (in his opinion) which he does when.

He just presented a bullet-pointed list, where Yak's introduction said it in an essay.

Nurglitch wrote:
He even says that GW (I'm supposing that's who the 'we' refers to) maintains an internal database for the sake of consistency.

Actually, the database he speaks of is only for GW US, which hopefully everyone knows has nothing to do with games design, and is largely a sales organization. As he said, he's "Trying to get feedback from the UK." Getting feedback from the Studio is next to impossible, actually. They're looking forward, to what they're next project is, not looking back to fix problems that exist. The general attitude from them is pretty much, "we'll fix that next time around."

Nurglitch wrote:
So far as a methodology for deriving objectively right or wrong answers is concerned, John Spencer and his crew are more than half way there. Which is why I'm curious about the rest of it, such as his criteria for evidence, how he evaluates arguments for competing interpretations, and all those other little details the sweating of which turns an opinion into the right opinion.

What you're looking for is a methodology that anyone can apply mechanically, or can use a deductive process - in essence, a computer program that if you feed in a question, will always produce the same answer. It's simply Not Possible, or at least not possible in the way that you are looking for.

Bill, remind me not to argue with you. I hate getting crushed with logic, cause, well,....where do you go?

KeithGatchalian wrote:

Don't listen to him.....John Spencer looks exactly like Sean Connery, especially when he wears his Dallas Cowboy Jersey.


RAI....I think obvious logic works here. Even the Adepticon FAQ uses it. See the answer for Shrike and an infilitrating squad.

I think you're just lookin' for a whuppin!

Orkeosaurus wrote:John Spencer, do you have relation to The John Spencer Blues Explosion?

(If not, groz is a liar.)

No, not to my knowledge.

None of these are really good examples of logic. They are, however, excellent examples of rhetoric. Since rhetoric was meant as a tool for the forum it seems quite appropriate that it be used in our more modern equivalent.

Nurglitch wrote:JohnOSpencer:

Hey, good to hear you're posting here as a private individual. I'd recommend putting that disclaimer you posted earlier in the thread into your signature so that people don't spam your PM box, like I was tempted to do at first...

Anyhow, now that you're given us some insight into how you approach rules questions professionally, I was wondering if we could hassle you about method, specifically, what's the method you guys use to solving and checking rulings? I mean, you take a "RAI" approach, but specifically what do you do? What sort of procedure or rules do you apply?

Well, generally, not too many of the questions we get actually require more than reading the book. Maybe 1 in 4 or so.

In the cases where it does, I read all the relevant rules to see if there is some little wording we've missed. If not, I give it a quick 'gut check', to see what my first impulse answer is. Then I discuss it with the other customer service reps. They look at the rules and we come to a consensus.

In rare cases, we will give our best answer and then send it to our contact in the studio. Almost always he has the exact same answer as us, and most of these questions make it into a FAQ.

That's about it. It helps that the entire Customer Service team is comprised of veteran hobbyists and veteran GW employees. We usually rule RAI, as you all have noticed, we feel that we have been playing long enough to judge, in most cases, what the rule was intended to do.

So just out of curiosity, what is preventing GW from posting a living FAQ ala Magic or any other number of gaming systems that update more regularly?

It would more or less do away with all of the arguments and cries of "cheese!" that we see on this forum and in our local stores (Vulkan/Sisters, Deffrollas being two obvious and dead horse issues). It obviously wouldn't take more effort than the process you've currently got in place beyond simply typing it up and loading the pdf onto the website.

This is such a small and minimally costed change that would benefit literally everyone in the hobby. I don't just have knockdown dragout rules slugfests on Dakka; it regularly occurs in my store as well and although d6-ing for a single game is well and good, many would like to simply know the rules as they're intended to be played (since what is written often doesn't work when dealing with contentious issues).

I'm not "TFG" either; almost every Big Question has about half of the group going "well, yes" and the other "well, no".

JohnOSpencer wrote:
That's about it. It helps that the entire Customer Service team is comprised of veteran hobbyists and veteran GW employees. We usually rule RAI, as you all have noticed, we feel that we have been playing long enough to judge, in most cases, what the rule was intended to do.

Hmm...so you mean to say that you don't view the rules merely as an answer to a mathematical question?

JohnOSpencer:

I find that's somewhat the same around here: around a quarter of the questions that people put to the forum are question that would be answered had they picked up a rulebook and read it.

But I'm still curious, and I hope you'll continue to be a good sport about this, but you say that when you read all the relevant rules to see if there's something you missed. How do you judge what is relevant? How do you know if some information was missed in the first few read-throughs?

Likewise, when you discuss it with the other customer service representatives, how do you organize the discussion? More importantly, how do you come to a consensus?

I'm curious about these things because I have a hunch that, although you may not think of it as having been codified, I suspect that you are actually following a reproducible procedure, one that is no less a procedure for having been unstated.

That the Studio almost always has the exact some answer as you derived from hashing it out with your fellow veteran hobbyists suggests very strongly to me that this is the case.

The reason I'm hammering on about this is that explicitly stating the procedure means that you would have a procedure that could be exported to other end-users, players, and generally make your job answering questions much easier by giving players a problem solving tool for resolving disputes about the rules.

So I'm trying to get you to think about how you might go about stating it.

On the same note, I think it would be a wise idea to have our own personal Dakka-FAQ with a compilation of Johns rulings. Perhaps as someone mentioned in the form of an article so it could be updated by people that have not only received a ruling from him, but from the man himself to add things he feels necessary (when he has time, of course). Also, it's good to know that there's a bit more of a process than just one individuals gut feeling (which granted is often the right one).

Also I find RAI to be generally more fun than RAW because some clever linguists can destroy a sentence with their mighty brainiums. But that's just my opinion... I like fluff too so I may be a bit biased in that regard .

Or, John, would it be possible to get a copy of that file you keep of your answers.........................??

don_mondo wrote:Or, John, would it be possible to get a copy of that file you keep of your answers.........................??

I'd love too, but it's an internal Wiki which only a couple of people have access to. Also, we just started, there's only a handful of items in there. We've been busy trying to get caught up after Christmas.

Nurglitch wrote:
<snip>But I'm still curious, and I hope you'll continue to be a good sport about this, but you say that when you read all the relevant rules to see if there's something you missed. How do you judge what is relevant? How do you know if some information was missed in the first few read-throughs?

Slow and careful reading. There's no easy way to it. You just have to slow down and read the whole section and evaluate each sentence.

Likewise, when you discuss it with the other customer service representatives, how do you organize the discussion? More importantly, how do you come to a consensus?

I wait until they're off the phone and bring it up. Reference some pages, see what they think. (Now I tell them what I think) If they don't agree, I tell them how I came to my conclusion and we discuss some more. Usually one of us will bring up a point that convinces all the rest and we're done. If not, we relent to the majority opinion.

I'm curious about these things because I have a hunch that, although you may not think of it as having been codified, I suspect that you are actually following a reproducible procedure, one that is no less a procedure for having been unstated.

It's what, I expect, most gaming groups/tournament organizers do.

That the Studio almost always has the exact some answer as you derived from hashing it out with your fellow veteran hobbyists suggests very strongly to me that this is the case.

Not always though. (Rubberbanding Swooping Hawks)

The reason I'm hammering on about this is that explicitly stating the procedure means that you would have a procedure that could be exported to other end-users, players, and generally make your job answering questions much easier by giving players a problem solving tool for resolving disputes about the rules.

So I'm trying to get you to think about how you might go about stating it.

Nothing earth shattering, but if it helps...

sourclams wrote:So just out of curiosity, what is preventing GW from posting a living FAQ ala Magic or any other number of gaming systems that update more regularly?

It would more or less do away with all of the arguments and cries of "cheese!" that we see on this forum and in our local stores (Vulkan/Sisters, Deffrollas being two obvious and dead horse issues). It obviously wouldn't take more effort than the process you've currently got in place beyond simply typing it up and loading the pdf onto the website.

This is such a small and minimally costed change that would benefit literally everyone in the hobby. I don't just have knockdown dragout rules slugfests on Dakka; it regularly occurs in my store as well and although d6-ing for a single game is well and good, many would like to simply know the rules as they're intended to be played (since what is written often doesn't work when dealing with contentious issues).

I'm not "TFG" either; almost every Big Question has about half of the group going "well, yes" and the other "well, no".

Time, more than anything. We barely have time to do all the things we have to in a week, and we can't be nearly as thorough as we'd like. Add in vacations, sick days, meetings...I think you get the point.

We hope to get to living FAQ eventually(at least in the US office), but who knows when/if we'll get time

olympia wrote:
Hmm...so you mean to say that you don't view the rules merely as an answer to a mathematical question?

Definitely not. This is a game, for fun. We subscribe to the most important rule and often(but not always) RAW can get in the way.

RAW is great for a quick ruling when playing a game, but any thought out answer should be RAI, in our opinion.

So John,

Would it be possible to get a copy of everything you guys have ruled on? I was thinking (as it was suggested to me anyhow) that we could create an topic on it and keep in the Dakka articles section? I'd be willing to sort through it and put it in a nice presentable format ;-)

Sazzlefrats wrote:So John,

Would it be possible to get a copy of everything you guys have ruled on? I was thinking (as it was suggested to me anyhow) that we could create an topic on it and keep in the Dakka articles section? I'd be willing to sort through it and put it in a nice presentable format ;-)

that would be super helpful, and any time you reply to an email John, you could BCC it to someone to put into the Dakka FAQ

that would be super helpful, and any time you reply to an email John, you could BCC it to someone to put into the Dakka FAQ

That would be fantastic!

He would have to be careful about doing that I would think. Because at that point Dakka would become GW's unofficial outlet for rules queries and subsequent answers from their staff.

Posting what you get in a reply to your personal E-mail is fine. But some companies wouldnt agree with a staff member, while on company time, sending information to a seperate outlet outside of the requesting party.

Dakka would esentially though the actions of GW staff, be being given a form of endorcement. While I have no problem with it, who knows what they as a company might say about that direct practice and relation with Dakka Mods.

Lastly, as Mr. Spencers answers are no more official then others come to on here (in no way discrediting him and his co-workers who help). I think Yak and Cent99 and others do a pretty good job for this site answering things as best as they are able.

By having 2 ongoing positngs of rules querries and suggested answers, it may present a conflict for the site. There are always generally 2 sides to any argument as we all know. If Yak and others are on one side of it, and you dont agree, you dont need Mr. Spencers (if he and his group was on the other side) answer to have validity to how YOU want to play YOUR games.

Actually most people that I know want to play GW's game the way GW intends the game to be played. With all respect to the work put in by Yakface and company and the 'Your Game, Your Rules' mindset, Spencer's opinion is far, far more useful for settling rules disputes at my store.

Me, you, and Yakface are just guys on the internet. Spencer is "legit" so to speak.

sourclams wrote:Actually most people that I know want to play GW's game the way GW intends the game to be played. With all respect to the work put in by Yakface and company and the 'Your Game, Your Rules' mindset, Spencer's opinion is far, far more useful for settling rules disputes at my store.

Me, you, and Yakface are just guys on the internet. Spencer is "legit" so to speak.

Spencer is a customer service rep at a sales organization. He's got no real immediate connection to the Games Dev studio.

Not to knock what he's doing, but he's hardly the all-knowing arbiter of rules that you seem to make him up to be.

I'm under no illusion that Spencer is some rules-writing-GW-guru.

But, working for GW, and having been put into a rules arbitration capacity, even nominally, provides him with a better basis for making those 'RAI' judgment calls that create so much contention.

What I, Yakface, the INAT ruling council, Nurglitch, or anyone else on these forums think is 99% worthless at the game store because we're all just faceless internet avatars. We have the exact same resources, the rulebook, and that makes us 0% more qualified than the next guy for making a contentious ruling call.

Spencer isn't the Red Shirt Rule Boy that gets it mixed up or wrong half the time, he's consistent, reasonable, replicable, and the GW guy in charge of answering questions. Is he official? No, not really, but he's better than our herd of schmucks.

Eh to each their own. I dont see working for GW as making it any more official, while still being totally unofficial, then what we do here.

Of all those things you mentioned as a benifit of his, we are all too. Save of course, not working for GW. So if I go and get a job with GW do I suddenly carry more weight to my decisions? I dont think so.

For those of us on the Council, we are more then faceless internet avatars, as you describe. Rather then someone just going on a forum like this and saying (enter online handle here) "says soooo".. we actually have a painstakenly created document put forth for the community to use as they wish.

Its something you can go back to and reference consistantly, should you choose to use it. And as anyone who chooses to use it will know, every member of the council, while not infallable, is every bit as deticated to a accurate and fair ruling as Mr. Spencer, or anyone else who cares enough to take on such a time consuming task.

At the end of the day, when a person can toss out what we came up with as easliy as what Mr. Spencer and his group comes up with, we are on a even field.

Marius Xerxes wrote:Eh to each their own. .....

At the end of the day, when a person can toss out what we came up with as easliy as what Mr. Spencer and his group comes up with, we are on a even field.

Mr. Spencer seems to favor RAI more than the INAT people. You are on an even field except you do not work for GW in the capacity of a customer service representative tasked with answering rules queries.

olympia wrote:

Marius Xerxes wrote:Eh to each their own. .....

At the end of the day, when a person can toss out what we came up with as easliy as what Mr. Spencer and his group comes up with, we are on a even field.

You are on an even field except you do not work for GW in the capacity of a customer service representative tasked with answering rules queries.

Perhaps. But Yakface & the FAQ council are cited in more GW FAQs than Mr. Spencer.

I think collecting Mr. Spencer's rulings would be a very useful tool for many people, and using our wiki system would be ideal. However there are a few potential serious pitfalls.


1) Mr. Spencer's rulings are unofficial. What I mean by that is when GW eventually comes out with a FAQ there is absolutely no guarantee that they will rule the same way that Mr. Spencer has. If the past has been any indication even if they told him that they were going to rule one way, there is still a very real possibility that a different ruling may surface when it is finally printed. Right now it seems as though several people are working under the misguided assumption that his rulings *are* official, but all it will take is for one of his rulings to then be contradicted by an official FAQ for this whole perception to shatter.

By collating all of his answers into a single place it only helps to strengthen the illusion that it is some sort of de-facto semi-official FAQ, which of course it will not actually be. I'm a little hesitant about helping to perpetrate that myth.


2) Normally the beauty of the wiki is that anyone can add to it, and it seems like that would be ideal for people to add the rulings they get from Mr. Spencer into a master article of his answers. However, the problem with this is that the validity of anything posted as having 'come from' Mr. Spencer can only be verified by contacting him. That means ultimately this collection of rulings from Mr. Spencer would need to be collected by one person (or a small group of people) in order to have any chance of remaining truthful.

Now, our wiki articles can be set so that they can only be edited by the user who started them, so this is a possibility if one person wanted to step up and make this their mission, then by all means they should.



So even though I have a couple reservations about it, obviously if someone wants to become the champion of this and maintain and verify all of his rulings (unless, of course we can get Mr. Spencer himself to look over the article every now and then and make sure there aren't any erroneous rulings), let me know and I can help you get started. Anyone want to take this on? Nurglitch? Someone else?

sourclams wrote:Actually most people that I know want to play GW's game the way GW intends the game to be played.

You mean, using the rules as a basic framework and resolving any issues that arise however they personally see fit? (Rulebook, page 2 )


On that basis, the opinion of Yakface and the rules council, Mr Spencer, and some kid pulled off the street who has never heard of the game before are all equally valid for finding rules answers... All that matters is that the players have a resolution that they're happy to play on with.

To put it another way, playing the game the way GW 'intend' the game to be played, the validity of a given rules clarification is completely irrelevant. Whether or not Mr Spencer, Yakface, Jervis, or my cat says that Ork Deffrollas work against vehicles is completely secondary to whether or not the people actually playing the game want them to work against vehicles.

Centurian99 wrote:

sourclams wrote:Actually most people that I know want to play GW's game the way GW intends the game to be played. With all respect to the work put in by Yakface and company and the 'Your Game, Your Rules' mindset, Spencer's opinion is far, far more useful for settling rules disputes at my store.

Me, you, and Yakface are just guys on the internet. Spencer is "legit" so to speak.

Spencer is a customer service rep at a sales organization. He's got no real immediate connection to the Games Dev studio.

Not to knock what he's doing, but he's hardly the all-knowing arbiter of rules that you seem to make him up to be.

Nor are you, or Yakface, or anyone not in the Dev Studio.

However, I do believe that John has a bit more access to the Studio then you think. I don't think he can just email them willy nilly, but if something major came up, he could always find out the right info.

KeithGatchalian wrote:

Nor are you, or Yakface, or anyone not in the Dev Studio.

However, I do believe that John has a bit more access to the Studio then you think. I don't think he can just email them willy nilly, but if something major came up, he could always find out the right info.

You are spot on, however the important thing to remember here is that even emails from the design studio aren't even official.

We have to remember that the design studio is not some giant machine that always spits out the same answer. It is filled with people with varying opinions and when asked about a particular ruling the answer they give isn't necessarily going to be the answer that gets put down in the official FAQ after they think about it further (or even someone else becomes tasked with writing the FAQ). I do believe that one person is now tasked with handling all the FAQs (Alessio) and I'll do my best to talk to him at Adepticon and find out what I can about their FAQ process, but even then you never know when GW will change their mind and assign that task to someone else (or that person leaves the company).

So while emails from the design studio and therefore Mr. Spencer's rulings are certainly good 'sign posts' on how their FAQs may rule, taking them as gospel before the official FAQ is released is a recipe for heartache.

The other thing about Mr. Spencer's rulings is that you don't always know which ones are just his opinion on the matter and which ones he has gotten guidance from the studio on, although he does definitely seem to include that information sometimes (which is great).

Yak, if people are interested in starting this Wiki of his rulings on here, id be happy to maintain it.

I just need everyone to forward the messages to me, and with him now being on here, i could ask him when i add enough to look through if he had time and yay or nay certain ones as having come fom him and his group.

Here's the really big problem about trying to use the "intent" of the games designers (aside from the obvious one of nobody I know being telepathic).

They're British.

Anyone here ever studied British constitutional law?

Seriously though...

Mr. Spencer seems to favor RAI more than the INAT people. You are on an even field except you do not work for GW in the capacity of a customer service representative tasked with answering rules queries.

Again, I'll bet if you ask John what he does for GW US, the answer is not, "answering rules questions." He's a customer service rep in a sales organization. GW US has nothing to do with games design - its a sales organization that also does manufacturing, with some event planning thrown in (since GW US is vertically integrated). The don't even do WD anymore...that's done almost entirely in the UK, with a couple of pages set aside for US specific stuff.

While a somewhat nebulous term, usually customer service reps handle things like order fulfillment, general problem-solving, and answering phones/emails related to sales and orders.

I salute the progress of GW US (the move from having any CSR put on a Rulezboy hat as emails came in to a single person is a good step towards consistency) as is the internal wiki they're using to record answers, but the fact remains that any answers they give are Not Official Rules, by any stretch of the imagination. Their goal is to allow their customers to play games instead of discussing rules. But actually getting the "right" answers is not necessarily their first priority.

Centurian99 wrote:Again, I'll bet if you ask John what he does for GW US, the answer is not, "answering rules questions." He's a customer service rep in a sales organization. GW US has nothing to do with games design - its a sales organization that also does manufacturing, with some event planning thrown in (since GW US is vertically integrated). The don't even do WD anymore...that's done almost entirely in the UK, with a couple of pages set aside for US specific stuff.

You act like because his primary role is to operate in a sales capacity he has no competitive advantage or additional credibility. I've shown people the INAT FAQ before to settle an argument and gotten the "That's nice, but who cares about this guy" response. Then Spencer showed up and I was jadedly pessimistic that he'd be any more useful, but when I email him and get an answer with a GW email address stamped on it, and then other local people can email him and get the exact same answer, it's much more effective for conflict resolution.

I mean, it's not like the opinions of those here are perfect. I remember an early version of this year's INAT that said Dark Angel land speeders couldn't score... even though this was the exact opposite of what was stated in the codex. Looks like it was fixed but the credibility of the document is less than ironclad.

INAT isn't worthless, but for the outside world, Spencer's emails work. Nobody cares that his primary job is to find out why somebbody's truck didn't deliver 50 Black Reach sets on time as long as his rulings are reasonable and consistent and mirror how GW "plays the game".

KeithGatchalian wrote:

However, I do believe that John has a bit more access to the Studio then you think. I don't think he can just email them willy nilly, but if something major came up, he could always find out the right info.

Exactly.
Water-cooler talk at my job: "I heard that Bob messed up his TPS reports again."
Water-cooler talk at John Spencer's job: "How was your weekend Bill? Calgar is subject to the No Retreat! rule."

Must be watercooler-YELLING as John Spencer is in the US.

Centurian99 wrote
Here's the really big problem about trying to use the "intent" of the games designers (aside from the obvious one of nobody I know being telepathic).

They're British.

Anyone here ever studied British constitutional law?

Yes!! It makes perfect sense, dammit... Its not our fault you colonials decided to write things down instead of just trusting to a bunch of old blokes saying "well, we've always done it like that..."


On topic, the only thing I find strange is that John Spencer has been chosen as the 'point man' for rules questions.
Now this is not to denigrate John in any way. As has been pointed out his rulings seem fair and consistent, the database of answers is a fine idea and the fact that he can contact the design studio lends him credibility.

But, he is a member of the US sales team. GW have obviously selected him as the guy who answers rules e-mails globally (the e-mail address is a .com, not a .co.uk or other suffix) and must therefore trust him to fulfill that task - but would it not be more sensible to have picked someone at Nottingham to do this job? Someone at head office would have easy(er) access to the developers and if Alessio is in charge of FAQ's surely someone who works with him would be better placed to answer questions?

Chimera_Calvin wrote:


On topic, the only thing I find strange is that John Spencer has been chosen as the 'point man' for rules questions.
Now this is not to denigrate John in any way. As has been pointed out his rulings seem fair and consistent, the database of answers is a fine idea and the fact that he can contact the design studio lends him credibility.

But, he is a member of the US sales team. GW have obviously selected him as the guy who answers rules e-mails globally (the e-mail address is a .com, not a .co.uk or other suffix) and must therefore trust him to fulfill that task - but would it not be more sensible to have picked someone at Nottingham to do this job? Someone at head office would have easy(er) access to the developers and if Alessio is in charge of FAQ's surely someone who works with him would be better placed to answer questions?

I think what this indicates is that rules questions and indeed FAQs are a very low priority for GW. It's almost as if they believe that creating a formal, dedicated position for this would somehow taint their craft--make them less creative or something. The absolute piss-poor quality of the FAQs and their infrequent release and updates supports this.

I also think that GW would contend the rules questions do not bother 99% of the people who play the game and hence the emphasis on fluff etc. over rules is justified.

olympia wrote:

I think what this indicates is that rules questions and indeed FAQs are a very low priority for GW.

As a corollary to this, it also reflects that GW feels rules are "self evident" and that people should simply "know" how to play the game based on how the author intended. Identifying this intent is where I find Spencer's opinion most useful.

But, he is a member of the US sales team. GW have obviously selected him as the guy who answers rules e-mails globally (the e-mail address is a .com, not a .co.uk or other suffix) and must therefore trust him to fulfill that task - but would it not be more sensible to have picked someone at Nottingham to do this job? Someone at head office would have easy(er) access to the developers and if Alessio is in charge of FAQ's surely someone who works with him would be better placed to answer questions?

This is actually a very good point. I´ve been scrathing my head over this same question ever since this whole "Spencer question" first surfaced.

I think what this indicates is that rules questions and indeed FAQs are a very low priority for GW. It's almost as if they believe that creating a formal, dedicated position for this would somehow taint their craft--make them less creative or something. The absolute piss-poor quality of the FAQs and their infrequent release and updates supports this.

I also think that GW would contend the rules questions do not bother 99% of the people who play the game and hence the emphasis on fluff etc. over rules is justified.

QFT. The cold fact is that you don´t have to be a mythical "power gamer" or a "tournament player" to want clear and concise rules. House rules should be the voluntary exception. But when the same problems surface again and again, the house rules become mandatory and de facto basic rules. Negotiating patches for unclear rules with each opponent is most definitly not fun. According to GW the whole purpose of this hobby is to have "fun". Well, using a minimum of 10 minutes extra ( for some codexes )before games just for settling rules questions is really frustrating.

The biggest problem with rules issues, is they get argued.

I have not agreed with all of John's decisions, but none of them seem way off base. Same with Yak, INAT, etc.

What I would *really* like, is for GW to just state "What John says is official"
Tada... now we have answers we can use.

Yak, I understand your concern about new FAQs not agreeing with Johns rulings, but I don't see that as a big problem. Some of the FAQ rulings don't agree with previous FAQ rulings, or even with the rest of the rules. If John says "Spore Mines are KP" and 8 months later the FAQ says "Spore mines are not KP", no big deal. At least we had consistent reliable rules. Better than having a discussion before every game.

While I may have an opinion, I don't really care what the ruling is, I care that we have a ruling. I would gladly abide by the 2-3 'wrong' decisions** John makes, in order to have the other 25 down in black and white. (It is what makes the INAT faq useful.)

**



So John,

It doesn't have to be pretty, just a place where you can post the Q&A's that you deal with. It will probably *save* you time, since I am sure you get a ton of the same question.


Cent99,
I don't know what John's actual job title is, but it doesn't really matter. I don't think Yak/Marius/You are game designers for GW (or anywhere?), but you guys do a good job with the INAT.
And John does have the advantage that he deals with GW topics day in and day out, and does have some access to the design studio. (how much... who knows...) Off the top of my head, there is only one ruling he has made that I disagree with, and I can live with it. I just want GW to acknowledge it as 'official' (at least until it is changed), and to have a place to review what has been said.


gak,I may start writing GW now....

If this wiki gets going on dakka, will the answers affect the INAT FAQ, because, some of the answers I have gotten from John are different then what is in the INAT FAQ.

coredump wrote:I just want GW to acknowledge it as 'official' (at least until it is changed), and to have a place to review what has been said.

Never happen. Heck, we're having Alessio as a special guest this year at AdeptiCon, and getting feedback from him on the INAT FAQ was...somewhat delayed (although he did give us feedback that was helpful, especially with the Chaos Daemons questions). And this is with our people talking with him on a weekly basis to make his travel arrangements, etc so it wasn't that he didn't have time to talk about FAQs...he just didn't want to talk about FAQs.

The Studio has zero interest in comprehensive, up-to-date FAQs, for a variety of reasons. However, they're also extremely possessive about their IP and control of other related issues, and I can bet they'll Never give a GW US employee their "official stamp of approval."

sourclams wrote: I've shown people the INAT FAQ before to settle an argument and gotten the "That's nice, but who cares about this guy" response.

Well of course you did. It's an unofficial FAQ. It's only valid for resolving disputes if you and your opponent have actually agreed to use it.

I think the misconception that the FAQ should be something that you can just pull out of your bag and stop arguments with is a large part of the problem that certain people have with the INAT FAQ.

But that's simply not what it's for. Unless you're playing in one of the tournaments that uses it, it's a set of rules clarifications for those who choose to use it.

It's a way of not having to go through all of those rules issues with an opponent before the game. Instead of saying 'How do you play this? And what about that? And this other thing?' you're simply agreeing to the whole swag at once.

Then Spencer showed up and I was jadedly pessimistic that he'd be any more useful, but when I email him and get an answer with a GW email address stamped on it, and then other local people can email him and get the exact same answer, it's much more effective for conflict resolution.

It's more effective because you haven't chosen to resolve conflicts a different way. The group I game with tends to resolve conflicts simply by deciding how to play it amongst ourselves when the issue arises... and if an FAQ comes along that agrees with us, that's just gravy.

Looks like it was fixed but the credibility of the document is less than ironclad.

There's that idea again that the INAT is trying to be some sort of official document. It's not. It doesn't need 'credibility' to do its job. It just needs people to stop thinking that it's something that it has never been presented to be.

I just wanted to point out that my job is actually all Customer Service, the sales are just a facet of that. I don't have to upsell anyone, no minimum sales numbers to meet-just take the order for those who don't want to do place it online. I consider answer rules questions a very important part of my job and take it very seriously.

On to other points(i'll answer what I can and get the rest tonight, when I get home)
The only thing more official about my answers is the fact that I work for GW and answering rules questions is part of my job. They can be overrulled by any FAQ that is printed.
It's unlikely that my answers will ever be considered 'official', that's just not the way we work. The reason I am the the only email for rules questions is that the UK does not answer questions by email. They have an address for order issues, but nothing else. They prefer to work by phone.

On to the cataloging my answers and such:
I'll ask my boss to see what he thinks and let you guys know.

If I missed anything, let me know.

And you don't need to call me "Mr. Spencer". John or JOS(if it gets confusing) will do. I have a nickname, but it would take too long to explain and I rarely use it.

Thanks again John for being here and being so responsive. We appreciate both your hard work and your "off duty" participation. It's really helpful.

@ JOS

Im not sure how GW operates, but for now you are the only one here in the U.S. doing this for the community of us who play right? Or is this company wide?

So as a question to you, and maybe a issue to bring forth to others, is what if GW Australia decided to have an individual start taking E-mails and answering questions like you do for their area?

Where im going is that if while you are the only one in the US doing it, what happens if another facet of your company starts doing it as well? At that point we could get conflicting answers to the same questions. Both of whom, since now working for GW, are on totally equal ground.

If you are the only one in GW doing this for all of us, then thats a null point and awesome of them to have you do it. But if the freedom is open to them to start having 1 person per country or region.. that could get hairy.

I agree with Mannahnin. I was in the bashing rulezboyz camp (you know, call them three times for a yes/no question and get three answers... ), but I'm inclined to treat your rulings as more valid since they have consistency. And you're posting here on Dakka where all the cool people are so that must mean you're cool.

Yes, his rulings (and INAT FAQ) aren't official, but hell, most of the time we just want to get on with our game and any document or resource that helps do that is useful.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

insaniak wrote:

It's more effective because you haven't chosen to resolve conflicts a different way. The group I game with tends to resolve conflicts simply by deciding how to play it amongst ourselves when the issue arises... and if an FAQ comes along that agrees with us, that's just gravy.

Because I play in a store with a reasonably large 40k gaming population. As I've already explained, when rules issues come up they tend to persist if there is no rules moderation (which, since store games are 90% friendly pickups, doesn't seem to exist). Likewise, the gaming population is split between regulars and random people who walk in, so bouncing from game to game playing by different rules isn't appealing to people who play regularly. In short, the need arises for a consistent FAQ. INAT was presented and got no positive feedback. JohnOSpencer rulings were presented as an alternative and did. In short, my local gaming community feels that John of GW "Knows how it's played".

There's a lot of problems with the "group decision" method as a long term solution in a diverse gaming setting based around an independent store. First, you get the party split between Grognards who "always played it this way", Intelligensia who play it as the "Rules are Ironclad", and the Cheez-herders that dislike anything "cheesey". So resolving any one rules issue is almost impossible while keeping everyone happy because the outsiders are going to cry foul politics on the part of the insiders. An impartial GW opinion has been the best moderation.

sourclams wrote:

Because I play in a store with a reasonably large 40k gaming population. As I've already explained, when rules issues come up they tend to persist if there is no rules moderation (which, since store games are 90% friendly pickups, doesn't seem to exist). Likewise, the gaming population is split between regulars and random people who walk in, so bouncing from game to game playing by different rules isn't appealing to people who play regularly. In short, the need arises for a consistent FAQ. INAT was presented and got no positive feedback. JohnOSpencer rulings were presented as an alternative and did. In short, my local gaming community feels that John of GW "Knows how it's played".

There's a lot of problems with the "group decision" method as a long term solution in a diverse gaming setting based around an independent store. First, you get the party split between Grognards who "always played it this way", Intelligensia who play it as the "Rules are Ironclad", and the Cheez-herders that dislike anything "cheesey". So resolving any one rules issue is almost impossible while keeping everyone happy because the outsiders are going to cry foul politics on the part of the insiders. An impartial GW opinion has been the best moderation.

Im with you on useing what works for your group. If one isnt accecpted, but another is, then by all means use it.

I think the reason the INAT FAQ not being accecpted in a lot of areas though is because of how some people feel about it. I see a lot of people lash out it saying "who do they think they are" etc when it comes to making rulings and interpretations on questions. Even though JOS his group could have identical answers as Yak and the Council everytime, because we are merly players and not someone who works for GW, some people instantly throw it out on that basis. Which is fair, because its there for them to use or not use as they see fit.

On that same token, if I walked into your store and we had a game and an issue came up in which we did not agree, and you waved JOS answer saying I got this from GW, I would not accecpt it. Being clear, this is only if it was an issue we did not agree.. not that the answer came from any individual source specifically. I would simply say lets D6 it. For the pick up games I think simply rolling off is enough, when people dont have a "Official" FAQ to use to resolve the issue. I, in an attempt to not waist time, personally allow 5 min max for either side to explain why they feel something is one way or another. If in that time netiher side can agree, then roll and move on.

However, if your store collects answers from JOS and says these are official for any Tournament we hold, and they have them out and posted where I can get to them, by all means I would use them the whole day no question. I guess what im getting at, is that mid game a problem arrises, and the only thing you have in attempt to sway my opinion on an issue is a E-mail, im not going to accecpt it.

Marius Xerxes wrote:

I think the reason the INAT FAQ not being accecpted in a lot of areas though is because of how some people feel about it. I see a lot of people lash out it saying "who do they think they are" etc when it comes to making rulings and interpretations on questions. Even though JOS his group could have identical answers as Yak and the Council everytime, because we are merly players and not someone who works for GW, some people instantly throw it out on that basis. Which is fair, because its there for them to use or not use as they see fit.

This is very true. However, haven't there been some meaningful differences between the INAT FAQ and the response given by John Spencer (insofar as they have been reported on this forum)?

The Shokk Attack Gun Scatter (Spencer No/Inat Yes)
Deff Rollas on Vehicles (Spencer No/Inat Yes, later revised to No)

These are two that come up off the top of my head.

I think that most issues INAT and Spencer have an [independent?] consensus.

Marius' comment was hypothetical.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

olympia wrote:This is very true. However, haven't there been some meaningful differences between the INAT FAQ and the response given by John Spencer (insofar as they have been reported on this forum)?

To be honest, I coudlnt tell you. I haven't read much of JOS E-Mail messages posted on here. Though I am waiting to see what JOS and Yak say about getting those answers gathered up and letting me take over keeping them updated on here as people send them to me.

As far as meaningful differances, this is only going to be for the people who dont agree with how the Council ruled in the INAT FAQ. You have both sides to a argument at play here. While the Council ruled one way, JOS and his group ruled the other. So when a person is at odds with what the INAT FAQ says and they have a E-mail from JOS saying otherwise, they are going to be happy to wave it around saying this is how it should be, cause this person from GW says so.

But the real point is, waving around the INAT FAQ or JOS answers are both things that have no legs to stand on should your opponent choose not to use either. What everyone has to understand is that for either document be useful, all parties have to know about and agree to use them prior.

Ozymandias wrote:Marius' comment was hypothetical.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Well yes and no. While not being the reason all people throw it out, I am sure it is for a number of them.

you could roll a die as to whose answer to use...

usernamesareannoying wrote:you could roll a die as to whose answer to use...

Well if one answer supports one person, and the other answer supports the other person, then rolling the dice for which to use would result in the same thing with or without the documentation there.

Marius, I should have quoted Olympia, I was referring to this:

olympia wrote:

Marius Xerxes wrote:

I think the reason the INAT FAQ not being accecpted in a lot of areas though is because of how some people feel about it. I see a lot of people lash out it saying "who do they think they are" etc when it comes to making rulings and interpretations on questions. Even though JOS his group could have identical answers as Yak and the Council everytime, because we are merly players and not someone who works for GW, some people instantly throw it out on that basis. Which is fair, because its there for them to use or not use as they see fit.

This is very true. However, haven't there been some meaningful differences between the INAT FAQ and the response given by John Spencer (insofar as they have been reported on this forum)?

Marius Xerxes wrote:@ JOS

Im not sure how GW operates, but for now you are the only one here in the U.S. doing this for the community of us who play right? Or is this company wide?

So as a question to you, and maybe a issue to bring forth to others, is what if GW Australia decided to have an individual start taking E-mails and answering questions like you do for their area?

Where im going is that if while you are the only one in the US doing it, what happens if another facet of your company starts doing it as well? At that point we could get conflicting answers to the same questions. Both of whom, since now working for GW, are on totally equal ground.

If you are the only one in GW doing this for all of us, then thats a null point and awesome of them to have you do it. But if the freedom is open to them to start having 1 person per country or region.. that could get hairy.

Actually, I know Canada is answering questions by email also, though I'm not sure if it is an advertised answering rules questions or just helping out a customer who emailed. We have been in communication on a couple of specific questions. It is definitely possible we could disagree on questions, which would cause some interesting problems.

Marius Xerxes wrote:<snip> Though I am waiting to see what JOS and Yak say about getting those answers gathered up and letting me take over keeping them updated on here as people send them to me.

On this subject, my boss is ok with the theory, but it has to be handled by means other than BCCing you on all emails I answer. We're just not comfortable with that. Plus you'd my answers to deep, thought provoking questions like "Do Orks re-roll their armor saves?"(real question)

When I get caught up from the Christmas backlog(i'm about 1 week behind right now, with a short week this week and next, so no idea when that'll be), I'll be updating our internal Wiki more often and I can just copy and paste the sections by army ever so often.

I'm open to ideas if anyone has them.

No im fine with not being BCC'd. I figured we could set something up on Dakka where we announce to people to send me your reply's they ask, then i post them up and you can review them from time to time and say yes this one was me, or no we changed our mind etc.

Tough if you wanted to send me what you put into Wiki and not the direct responses yourself, that is fine as well. I don't need to know who is asking what, especially without their consent like would be the case if they send it to me themselves.

On this subject, my boss is ok with the theory, but it has to be handled by means other than BCCing you on all emails I answer. We're just not comfortable with that. Plus you'd my answers to deep, thought provoking questions like "Do Orks re-roll their armor saves?"(real question)

When I get caught up from the Christmas backlog(i'm about 1 week behind right now, with a short week this week and next, so no idea when that'll be), I'll be updating our internal Wiki more often and I can just copy and paste the sections by army ever so often.

I'm open to ideas if anyone has them.

You could always hire me to do the wiki <maniacal laugh>

The issue I have with RAI rulings is that they are opinion... which can differ from person to person

For example: Nob bikers and paint boyz giving a boss FNP, by raw this is an extremely difficult question to answer... it uses the wording "his unit" as does snikrot... sooo earlier by RAI it may have been RAI to say snikrot is not supposed to give ambush to ICs and painboys were... but ruling one way or the other changes how the game is played.

I'm a teacher... imagine I were to go and say I grade by what I think a student should get not by what my grade book says... It scares me how many issues that would cause! In grading I need an objective method of coming to a conclusion... such as a rubric. A rule set should be the same.

I do understand that the codexes and BRB are not written by the same people... and that GW is producing a hobby/mini line not a game, but there should be an editor, or some outside team that should check for agreement in rules writting styles for each book.

A simple check list could be made.

1) Do the rules on the unit description page match the rules on the summary sheet?
2) Do the special rules for this unit use the wording in the BRB?
3) Do the special rules that are ment to effect the unit address the issue of IC's?

LOL I'm such a by-the-rules nerd I would be willing to check this for them and sign the agreement that they could sue the crap out of me if I let the rules slip to people :p

Your assertion assumes that a rubric is not at all subjective, and that is false.

ummm do you want me to post a non subjectie rubric?

http://paer.rutgers.edu/ScientificAbilities/Downloads/DesExp/2007193LAB09.PDF

This is a rubric for a lab. Rutgers university spent a few years producing the rubrics while I was getting my masters degree there. I use a very specific rubric like this.

And don't tell me the wording "relative" is subjective the way it's used because then you're bringing up a slippery slope arguement and having read many of your responses on this site I give you more credibility then that

However if you are telling me that the typical rubric you would see from a teacher is subjective I would agree.

But don't tell me "false" and try to discount my statement like that k? Thanks

If that rubric had been written by GW, it would be half a page long and involve dicing on the periodic table.

sourclams wrote:If that rubric had been written by GW, it would be half a page long and involve dicing on the periodic table.

That Rubric was written by 3-4 doctorate candidates and piloted in labs by masters students like myself. It is extremely objective. I spend a lot of time with my rubrics just so they can be like this.

It took 3 years to produce and that is only a small section of it.

And yes... GW is less objective then myself :p

Well, since the GW FAQ's reference the INAT FAQ and a thanks to yakface and the INAT council, why can't they just take the INAT as it is written and slap a GW "Approved" on it? Then, boom, done. And free labor too.

whitedragon wrote:Well, since the GW FAQ's reference the INAT FAQ and a thanks to yakface and the INAT council, why can't they just take the INAT as it is written and slap a GW "Approved" on it? Then, boom, done. And free labor too.

QFT

I would accept this.

frgsinwntr wrote:ummm do you want me to post a non subjectie rubric?

http://paer.rutgers.edu/ScientificAbilities/Downloads/DesExp/2007193LAB09.PDF

Your document says:
"A judgment is made about the results, but it is not reasonable or coherent."
and
"An acceptable judgment is made about the result, but the reasoning is flawed or incomplete."

It is purely subjective whether one assesses the judgment as "not reasonable" or "the reasoning is flawed."

olympia wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:ummm do you want me to post a non subjectie rubric?

http://paer.rutgers.edu/ScientificAbilities/Downloads/DesExp/2007193LAB09.PDF

Your document says:
"A judgment is made about the results, but it is not reasonable or coherent."
and
"An acceptable judgment is made about the result, but the reasoning is flawed or incomplete."

It is purely subjective whether one assesses the judgment as "not reasonable" or "the reasoning is flawed."

Not subjective at all in the context of the material. For example, a reasonable or coherent judgement should follow the facts/results gained or stated. If this does not happen in the experiment/conclusion, then the judgement is not reasonable or coherent. On the second point, a judgement would be flawed or incomplete if it goes against the facts/results that are stated, or the author does not establish a link between the conclusion and the data.

olympia wrote:It is purely subjective whether one assesses the judgment as "not reasonable" or "the reasoning is flawed.

That's just, like, your opinion, man.

Whenever you are deciding between "Seriously flawed" and "minor errors", there is a grey zone. That, inherently, introduces subjective opinion.

Plus, you have control over the test, and the rubric 'for' John will not have that.
Further, a lab is designed to be fairly pointed with fairly specific outcomes predicted/desired. That is a far far cry from a game as open ended as 40K.

Yes, if you have control of the test, and the rubric, and are willing to only allow questions in the test that allow for a fairly objective rubric, it can be done. (It is how SAT Type tests are handled); but that is not the situation here.

Thanks White dragon, exactly my thoughts.

Core Dump, I'm not going to take this off topic... but neither of those words show up in the rubric for that exact reason. The wording is very carefully chosen to avoid subjectivity.

Control over the test... not sure what your point here is but allow me to restate mine in different words.

The point again is that there should be some time and effort put into rules decisions... not gut feelings.

You're looking for a technical rules set. GW doesn't write technical rules sets. For GW, the rulebooks are merely the medium by which they convey their "gut feelings" on how to play the game.

Yes, the world would be better if they were technical writers and they did update weekly. They're not and they don't.

The best representation you can get of the hard rules seems to be asking John Spencer because he's a representative of a focus group of GW employees empowered to make rules calls.

Nurglitch, Frgsnwntr, and the rest of the logical constructivist camp,

If build a rigorous and logical framework from a base of sloppy rules based on common English usage without making decisions which determine which of multiple meanings or intentions existed in the mind of the writers, your system will not produce singular, definitive answers. Instead, the best that your system will be able to do is produce sets of results which would be reasonable given the rules. The fact that your system of producing answers may be rigorous and systematic does not mean that the system's answers will be "correct".

Attempting to build a rigorous and systematic framework for 40k is a fine and noble idea, but that doesn't make any particular framework for that attempt automatically correct just because it was constructed according to what is taught in logic class.

Oh, well, I suppose you're right solkan. After all, you're an expert in the matter.

Actually Solkan's premise is pretty accurate. Your outputs are only as good as the inputs you provide your system with. If you could get an incredibly precise output based on amorphous or ambiguous inputs, then every single logic major would be a billionaire because they could create a Supply and Demand model that would give them the exact price at expiry for Futures contracts on a Mercantile Exchange.

Don't believe anybody that tells you rigorous predictive modeling is possible without complex systematic information inputs unless they happen to own their own tropical island.

Nurglitch wrote:Oh, well, I suppose you're right solkan. After all, you're an expert in the matter.

Sarcasm is always a pathetic substitute for an argument.

olympia wrote:Sarcasm is always a pathetic substitute for an argument.

It is purely subjective whether one assesses the judgment as "not reasonable" or "the reasoning is flawed."

sourclams wrote:Actually Solkan's premise is pretty accurate. Your outputs are only as good as the inputs you provide your system with. If you could get an incredibly precise output based on amorphous or ambiguous inputs, then every single logic major would be a billionaire because they could create a Supply and Demand model that would give them the exact price at expiry for Futures contracts on a Mercantile Exchange.

Don't believe anybody that tells you rigorous predictive modeling is possible without complex systematic information inputs unless they happen to own their own tropical island.

In, short, GIGO.

At least we can tell that sourclams is an expert in game theory, as well as logic.

this thread has gone off topic... and should be locked

Is has? Dang, and I was really looking forward to sourclams' declamation on the stock market, and how it's a simple matter of accurate prediction...

Not the stock market, Futures. And that's all it is, knowing what the number will be at Expiry. Supply and Demand, Fear and Greed. You like to be smug, but I doubt you're hitting 'send' from your own tropical island.

I'm surprised that you think I'm smug sourclams. After all, it's not like I'm writing a technical manual that would illustrate to you how to detect when I'm being smug.

But you're right, if only I knew the closing numbers for futures, I would own a tropical island. As we all know, the only measure of knowledge is the ownership of tropical islands.

If only frgsinwntr and I owned tropical islands, we could announce the fact and get on with holding court.

Can't we all just get along?

Not until I get a tropical island!

Please forgive my skepticism as I ask this, how exactly is it that we know that the user of the JohnOSpencer account is the same John Spencer reported to be answering the U.S. Games Workshop question e-mails? I don't recall anything verifying my real identity when I signed up for these forums...

No forgiveness necessary. Not sure how you'd want to prove it. Keith Gatchalian could verify, he worked with me. Other than that, you'll have to take my word on it.

Nurglitch wrote:As we all know, the only measure of knowledge is the ownership of tropical islands.

LOL So true.

solkan wrote:Please forgive my skepticism as I ask this, how exactly is it that we know that the user of the JohnOSpencer account is the same John Spencer reported to be answering the U.S. Games Workshop question e-mails? I don't recall anything verifying my real identity when I signed up for these forums...

I have to sort of agree with solkan here, not to be a jerk, but how can we be sure that this guy REALLY IS John Spencer, and not someone impersonating him? Not to call him a fake, but it is a good question.

EDIT: Also John, shouldn't your sig say to email rules questions to : askyourquestion@games-workshop.com (you missed the "S")


.

Eight Ball wrote:
EDIT: Also John, shouldn't your sig say to email rules questions to : askyourquestion@games-workshop.com (you missed the "S")


.

You obviously assume I can type. I get so focused on not typing askyourquestions that I forget the s in games workshop. I'll fix it, thanks!

And obviously someone is going to email askyourquestion@games-workshop.com to see if it's really me. Go ahead, get it over with. Just don't expect an answer until Tuesday, I got a 4 day weekend

solkan wrote:Please forgive my skepticism as I ask this, how exactly is it that we know that the user of the JohnOSpencer account is the same John Spencer reported to be answering the U.S. Games Workshop question e-mails? I don't recall anything verifying my real identity when I signed up for these forums...

He is probably a Chaos Marine. We should ask him who the Emperor is...

whitedragon wrote:Well, since the GW FAQ's reference the INAT FAQ and a thanks to yakface and the INAT council, why can't they just take the INAT as it is written and slap a GW "Approved" on it? Then, boom, done. And free labor too.

We had a rules dispute come up at GW the other day and when I suggested the solution presented in the INAT faq the store manager reacted very negative manner. He told me that the INAT faq held no water what-so-ever with GW. I responded that GW actually acknowledged and thanked yakface and the INAT council in their own faq. He countered that GW is forced to do this in order to avoid a future lawsuit from these individuals (because some of the wording in the GW faq mirror some of the wording in the INAT faq). He proceeded to tell me that extensive faq's weren't required because GW rules are "very tight". I found these notions to be extremely comical, which seemed to annoy him even more.

I've learned to tread lightly when I play down at GW and somewhat check my brain at the door.

holden88 wrote:

whitedragon wrote:Well, since the GW FAQ's reference the INAT FAQ and a thanks to yakface and the INAT council, why can't they just take the INAT as it is written and slap a GW "Approved" on it? Then, boom, done. And free labor too.

We had a rules dispute come up at GW the other day and when I suggested the solution presented in the INAT faq the store manager reacted very negative manner. He told me that the INAT faq held no water what-so-ever with GW. I responded that GW actually acknowledged and thanked yakface and the INAT council in their own faq. He countered that GW is forced to do this in order to avoid a future lawsuit from these individuals (because some of the wording in the GW faq mirror some of the wording in the INAT faq). He proceeded to tell me that extensive faq's weren't required because GW rules are "very tight". I found these notions to be extremely comical, which seemed to annoy him even more.

I've learned to tread lightly when I play down at GW and somewhat check my brain at the door.

Wow, bad rules advice AND bad legal explanations, all in one short conversation!

Who's John Spencer.....

holden88 wrote:

whitedragon wrote:Well, since the GW FAQ's reference the INAT FAQ and a thanks to yakface and the INAT council, why can't they just take the INAT as it is written and slap a GW "Approved" on it? Then, boom, done. And free labor too.

We had a rules dispute come up at GW the other day and when I suggested the solution presented in the INAT faq the store manager reacted very negative manner. He told me that the INAT faq held no water what-so-ever with GW. I responded that GW actually acknowledged and thanked yakface and the INAT council in their own faq. He countered that GW is forced to do this in order to avoid a future lawsuit from these individuals (because some of the wording in the GW faq mirror some of the wording in the INAT faq). He proceeded to tell me that extensive faq's weren't required because GW rules are "very tight". I found these notions to be extremely comical, which seemed to annoy him even more.

I've learned to tread lightly when I play down at GW and somewhat check my brain at the door.

They're probably just jealous of the Chicago Battle Bunker.

holden88 wrote:

whitedragon wrote:Well, since the GW FAQ's reference the INAT FAQ and a thanks to yakface and the INAT council, why can't they just take the INAT as it is written and slap a GW "Approved" on it? Then, boom, done. And free labor too.

We had a rules dispute come up at GW the other day and when I suggested the solution presented in the INAT faq the store manager reacted very negative manner. He told me that the INAT faq held no water what-so-ever with GW. I responded that GW actually acknowledged and thanked yakface and the INAT council in their own faq. He countered that GW is forced to do this in order to avoid a future lawsuit from these individuals (because some of the wording in the GW faq mirror some of the wording in the INAT faq). He proceeded to tell me that extensive faq's weren't required because GW rules are "very tight". I found these notions to be extremely comical, which seemed to annoy him even more.

I've learned to tread lightly when I play down at GW and somewhat check my brain at the door.

I'm not surprised at his reaction, I'd react the same way honestly. The INAT FAQ is not something that can be pulled out to resolve an existing argument because it is not official and it doesn't have any sway whatsoever regardless of the fact that GW thanked us in their official FAQs.

It is a set of house rules.

What it can be used for is if you have a gaming store/league/tournamnet and everyone there wants to run with a set of house rules to cover most possible disputes and you don't want to take the time to poll everyone in your store/league/tournament about how they stand on all these issues. Take it from me, that will take many, many, many hours if you want to cover all the issues we did in the INAT FAQ and there will be lots of arguments.

So if you approach everyone ahead of time and say: even though there are many rulings that each of us don't agree with in here, do we want to use it for our store/league/tournament because it will save us time and possible arguing? If everyone (or at least a majority) agrees then the FAQ becomes a useful tool for you.

If not, then you move on business as usual. Alternatively, you can always use the INAT FAQ as a base-line and just change the few rulings that your gaming group hates to the way you think it should be.


But the point is, telling someone mid-game or mid-argument that the INAT FAQ rules 'this way' is never going to solve an argument, so don't bother with it unless you guys have agreed to use the FAQ ahead of time.


And in the exact same way, John Spencer's rulings are not official either and so should not be 'dropped' on your opponent as gospel either unless those people have chosen to accept his rulings as the way they want to play.

sourclams wrote:
I mean, it's not like the opinions of those here are perfect. I remember an early version of this year's INAT that said Dark Angel land speeders couldn't score... even though this was the exact opposite of what was stated in the codex. Looks like it was fixed but the credibility of the document is less than ironclad.

INAT isn't worthless, but for the outside world, Spencer's emails work. Nobody cares that his primary job is to find out why somebbody's truck didn't deliver 50 Black Reach sets on time as long as his rulings are reasonable and consistent and mirror how GW "plays the game".

His rulings work for your gaming group because the players you have either like the way his rulings have come down or likely because they are under the misguided idea that his rulings are going to be the way the official FAQ rulings are also going to fall (assuming they ever come).

However, I guarantee that if someone in your group hated some of John Spencer's rulings then all of a sudden they wouldn't 'work' for you guys anymore because now you'd have some people who didn't want to listen to him because they think his rulings "aren't official", which is the only point I've been trying to make.

If John Spencer's rulings work for your gaming group then by all means you should agree to use them. Similarly if the INAT FAQ rulings work for your group then you can agree to use them too (and mix and match as you guys see fit).

But neither are official. I know some people want to close their eyes, stick their fingers in their ears and sing "LA-LA-LA", but although John Spencer works for Games Workshop he has said several times that his rulings are *not* official and nor can he guarantee that any of his rulings will match the official FAQs on the same subject if and when they ever come out.

That means using his rulings HAS to be something that is accepted by both people playing the game.

dashrendar wrote:If this wiki gets going on dakka, will the answers affect the INAT FAQ, because, some of the answers I have gotten from John are different then what is in the INAT FAQ.

I can't speak for everyone else involved with ruling on the INAT FAQ, but I would absolutely love, love, love to have the INAT FAQ matching John Spencer's ruling as much as possible. I would especially like his input regarding situations where he has gotten input from the design studio where he has ruled against (what appears to me) the RAW.

yakface wrote:But the point is, telling someone mid-game or mid-argument that the INAT FAQ rules 'this way' is never going to solve an argument, so don't bother with it unless you guys have agreed to use the FAQ ahead of time.

I disagree. I've played in many games where an external faq has resolved in game issues (even though it was not agreed beforehand to use said faq as the final arbitrator). I don't think it's essential to agree before hand before bringing other peoples rulings into a game discussion.

I don't think it's a case of "dropping" or "springing" a faq on someone, or trying to "use a faq to win an argument". I've never been that nefarious about it. If a brief rules discussion comes up in the middle of a game I find that it can help to know how other, respected sources have ruled in this case (even if they go against the way I feel).

In the end the INAT faq or John Spencer's e-mails or any other set of house rulings are guidlines that can help to resolve rules disputes, loopholes or other such grey area's. I don't think it's such a black a white situation where you need to have it written in stone that a certain faq is to be used for all rules disputes before you can bring said faq in a game.

However, if the other player knows nothing about online faq's (and there are a surprising number of people like this out there) or they don't respect the INAT faq (and/or John Spencer) then I wouldn't bring it up in the first place and I'd just roll for it (if no other solution could be found). This is a case where you kind of have to know who you're gaming with.

I certainly don't want to be the guy that shows up at GW with a printed copy of the INAT faq and proceeds to annoy all the others players by invoking it on a regular basis. This is the kind of thing that gives people a bad impression of other peoples fine works.

I am not as concerned with the concept that John's statements will be in the next FAQ or not. I just want "The Game" to have some answers to rules questions that are 'official' so that disputes can be answered quickly and across stores/groups/etc.

If there is a repository for his rulings, it will likely become more 'official' even if GW doesn't say anything. And if the INAT FAQ starts to follow the same path.... golden.

coredump wrote:
I am not as concerned with the concept that John's statements will be in the next FAQ or not. I just want "The Game" to have some answers to rules questions that are 'official' so that disputes can be answered quickly and across stores/groups/etc.

If there is a repository for his rulings, it will likely become more 'official' even if GW doesn't say anything. And if the INAT FAQ starts to follow the same path.... golden.

That'll never happen. The Games Dev Studio has no interest in doing it, and they're the only ones who can make something official.

And like JOS said, he knows that counter parts in Canada are answering questions as well. What happens then if you get 2 different answers from GW employees both tasked with the some objective?

Im going to guess that Canada is using the same Codex we in the States are, so whos rule do you go by? What happens when people come to a tourney down here or go up there? These forums are also international forums. Do we then regionalize answers then based on the country of question/player?

That is one reason also why it wont be official, because only the DEV Studio has the across the board, "This is how it is" FAQ's.

The easiest thing to do is to sit down with your group and look over all the questions out there, and then look to the people who have taken a long time to answer them, like JOS and his group, the INAT FAQ and its Rules Council, and any others out there. Find what set or combination of those sets you like most and lay that down as what is going to be "Official" for your game group.

Just remember that neither are "for sure" answers for any tournament you go to (except Adepticon), so keep an open mind and be sure to ask if they have a FAQ or set they are going to rule from.

Outside of getting GW to have an intern have a once a month meeting with the Dev Studio answering questions for an hour, you wont see much of any "Official" FAQ's like they used to. That is one thing I miss about Andy chambers 40k.. and that was Chapter Approved answers in my White Dwarf.

Marius Xerxes wrote:And like JOS said, he knows that counter parts in Canada are answering questions as well. What happens then if you get 2 different answers from GW employees both tasked with the some objective?

I can't go into details, but I just found out (on Thurs) we won't have to worry about Canada answering rules questions differently in a short while.

JohnOSpencer wrote:No forgiveness necessary. Not sure how you'd want to prove it. Keith Gatchalian could verify, he worked with me. Other than that, you'll have to take my word on it.

Of course I could verify that you are THE John O Spencer....

But how do we know I am not really you, or you are me? Posting under multiple names....very cunning...so cunning you could tie a tail to it and call it a weasel.....

I've known John for almost 10 years. There are very few people I'd trust with my money, my honey or my life and John is one of them. GW has no one better who could be doing this job...his passion for the game and the hobby is unparalleled.

JohnOSpencer wrote:

Marius Xerxes wrote:And like JOS said, he knows that counter parts in Canada are answering questions as well. What happens then if you get 2 different answers from GW employees both tasked with the some objective?

I can't go into details, but I just found out (on Thurs) we won't have to worry about Canada answering rules questions differently in a short while.

An ouverture to war, I guess.

*sings* Blame Canada..........blame Canada *sings*

Centurian99 wrote:

coredump wrote:
I am not as concerned with the concept that John's statements will be in the next FAQ or not. I just want "The Game" to have some answers to rules questions that are 'official' so that disputes can be answered quickly and across stores/groups/etc.

If there is a repository for his rulings, it will likely become more 'official' even if GW doesn't say anything. And if the INAT FAQ starts to follow the same path.... golden.

That'll never happen. The Games Dev Studio has no interest in doing it, and they're the only ones who can make something official.

Maybe not, at least not at this stage. But they don't have to.

The biggest complaint about using Johns rulings is that a) they could be falsified, and b) they are not publicly available, so that makes them 'secret', and that would be unfair to use.

If the answers were publicly available, then folks would be able to see they were real, and would know what they were. I think that alone will go a long way to having people accept them as 'official' regardless of what GW states. Moreso, if there is a wiki/Q&Asite/whatever up and being updated, it makes it much easier for GW to give it the 'official' status at a later stage. (And it makes it easier/more likely that the CA people will work with US people to keep answers consistent....though that is apparently not an issue for much longer.)

Well lets get this Dakka Rules FAQ going! I would start it, but since I am a noob still, people probably wouldnt like that.

dashrendar wrote:Well lets get this Dakka Rules FAQ going! I would start it, but since I am a noob still, people probably wouldnt like that.

Well im just waiting for JOS and Yak to work out the details on their respective ends and then see what we can do on here to keep a list going and updated.

I'm just about caught up now. So we should probably figure out exactly how this is going to be done.

Oh hey!

This project totally slipped my mind (too many things on my plate!).


John, I assume that you're too busy to worry about maintaining a separate wiki here on Dakka (but let me know if you aren't), so as such I think the plan would be to have Marius be the 'point' man who has control over the wiki here at Dakka.


There are then a couple of ways I can see this proceeding:


A) He would take any rulings he sees posted here on Dakka and put them into our wiki article of 'John Spencer's 40K rulings' to which you could occasionally check out to make sure that nothing is fraudulent.

Of course he could also contact you every now and then for verification if he sees a new ruling that seems strange.


And/Or:


B) I could send you a copy of the INAT FAQ and you could look through it and simply send him/me a list of where your rulings differ from those we put into our FAQ.

That would really go a long way towards identifying where the differences between the two are, so we can potentially rectify some of those the next time we issue our FAQ.


Thoughts?

yay! lets get this going! I would be willing to help too if it is needed.

Simple Answer:

Unless its errata, No

A seems like the easiest way(for me), but B seems like the more thorough way. Let me run an idea past by boss at work and I'll get back to you.

Would it be possible for someone (Marius?) to get access to the internal Wiki? Or something similar?

I very highly doubt that GW will let an outsider anywhere NEAR their internal Wiki.

Lordhat wrote:I very highly doubt that GW will let an outsider anywhere NEAR their internal Wiki.

We actually discussed it, but it was a no-go for a couple of reasons. So far, with my workload, it hasn't been updated too much. Also there is no way to give someone 'read-only' access.

JohnOSpencer wrote:

Lordhat wrote:I very highly doubt that GW will let an outsider anywhere NEAR their internal Wiki.

We actually discussed it, but it was a no-go for a couple of reasons. So far, with my workload, it hasn't been updated too much. Also there is no way to give someone 'read-only' access.

No offence, but that's utter rubbish. There are THOUSANDS of ways to give someone "read only access". If there isn't I seriously question that you either a) Have a Wiki or b) Use a Half Decent Program for the Wiki.

JohnOSpencer wrote:

Lordhat wrote:I very highly doubt that GW will let an outsider anywhere NEAR their internal Wiki.

We actually discussed it, but it was a no-go for a couple of reasons. So far, with my workload, it hasn't been updated too much. Also there is no way to give someone 'read-only' access.

If you were willing, I could happily create a read only mirror of it here on dakka?

legoburner wrote:
If you were willing, I could happily create a read only mirror of it here on dakka?

That is the kind of thing I was thinking of, but didn't have the right terminology in by little brain....


Waaaagh!, please do us all a favor. Either be helpful/constructive, or don't post. John is trying to get his company to do these things in order to help the community. This is not his job, this is not a requirement for him (nor the company), so please leave your pejorative comments out of this thread.

As much as I welcome clarifications on rules by GW I think they need to be published somewhere in a clear and concise way.

While the e-mails might be consistent in answers they're still not widely available. Which means you get back to the problem occasionally suffered in 3rd edition where nobbers would turn up with reams of paper highlighted with the parts that help their army.

At the end of the day I'm not convinced that it makes games any more fair. While things might come up commonly on forums like this, they can occour rarely in games and can be solved by a roll of the D6.

coredump wrote:

legoburner wrote:
If you were willing, I could happily create a read only mirror of it here on dakka?

That is the kind of thing I was thinking of, but didn't have the right terminology in by little brain....


Waaaagh!, please do us all a favor. Either be helpful/constructive, or don't post. John is trying to get his company to do these things in order to help the community. This is not his job, this is not a requirement for him (nor the company), so please leave your pejorative comments out of this thread.

How is that Pejorative?

All I am asking for is Proof that he has a wiki since he is talking rubbish about not being able to have Read Only Access.

if you consider that Pejorative then perhaps the internet isn't the place for you....

Waaaaaaagh! wrote:No offence, but that's utter rubbish. There are THOUSANDS of ways to give someone "read only access". If there isn't I seriously question that you either a) Have a Wiki or b) Use a Half Decent Program for the Wiki.

Oh, so you know exactly what wiki software we are using? Damn, you must be psychic. I don't even know the name of the software we are using, it was set up by someone else in the company. When I brought this issue up he stated there was no way to give read-only access with what we are using. As his is the expert, I take his word on it.

legoburner: I will check on the mirror idea.

Hymril: Baby steps. We're to the point where it is a serious part of my job. Next step is see if we can get them in print for the GTs, after that we will look into having access for everyone.

JohnOSpencer wrote:

Waaaaaaagh! wrote:No offence, but that's utter rubbish. There are THOUSANDS of ways to give someone "read only access". If there isn't I seriously question that you either a) Have a Wiki or b) Use a Half Decent Program for the Wiki.

Oh, so you know exactly what wiki software we are using? Damn, you must be psychic. I don't even know the name of the software we are using, it was set up by someone else in the company. When I brought this issue up he stated there was no way to give read-only access with what we are using. As his is the expert, I take his word on it.

legoburner: I will check on the mirror idea.

Hymril: Baby steps. We're to the point where it is a serious part of my job. Next step is see if we can get them in print for the GTs, after that we will look into having access for everyone.

Well then as an IT expert myself I will tell you now that guy played you for a fool.

Also, you must be the pride of GW, considering they let you go around insulting people.

If you really cant have read only access (unlike say, every single wiki I've ever seen) then may I suggest switching to a Wiki Software that does (presumably every other one)?

careful John, don't get pulled into a flame war, nor start one... I'm not the biggest fan of your rulings... but it is a place to start and would like to see this work.

WAAAAAGH is right. Every single wiki has the capability of being run as a read only. I believe this is a basic permissions issue can your administrator, who should presumably know what he is doing, can with a little work set it to read only if they want. It should only take a few lines of code. I'm sure a simple google search with the wiki software name and "permission" can fix this for you.

Some examples:
https://kb.iu.edu/data/auwj.html
http://www.dokuwiki.org/install:permissions

Waaaaaaagh! : whoa, easy there. You sound like you are picking a fight. I started this thread: dang it, no fighting.


Besides whatever Wiki the information may currently be on, its unlikely that would be in an acceptable format (the way data is organized there) that GW would allow it be viewed publicly.

Waaaaaaagh! wrote:
Also, you must be the pride of GW, considering they let you go around insulting people.

If you really cant have read only access (unlike say, every single wiki I've ever seen) then may I suggest switching to a Wiki Software that does (presumably every other one)?

Did I actually insult you? No. I stated that you must be psychic to actually know what program we are using. If that equals and insult to you, then I apologize.

frgsinwntr wrote:WAAAAAGH is right. Every single wiki has the capability of being run as a read only. I believe this is a basic permissions issue can your administrator, who should presumably know what he is doing, can with a little work set it to read only if they want. It should only take a few lines of code. I'm sure a simple google search with the wiki software name and "permission" can fix this for you.

Not to dispute you, but he is not right. I only have two options: Believe that you and Waaaaagh are right (without knowing which program we are using), or believe that the person who set up the program is right. No offense to either of you, but you know which one I'm going with.

At this point our wiki is a very minor thing in what we do. There is no point in someone spending their time creating a new one with different software. Remember it was designed for internal use, and use by someone with no prior wiki editing experience (me).

Now as giving someone else access to the Wiki is not going to happen, does anyone have any other suggestions.

Or, you know, it's not a technical issue that stops them from opening read-only access to an internal company wiki and something to do with, I don't know, the fact that it's an internal company wiki?

Nurglitch wrote:Or, you know, it's not a technical issue that stops them from opening read-only access to an internal company wiki and something to do with, I don't know, the fact that it's an internal company wiki?

VPN.

next please.

And there is nothing stopping them making a publicly accessible read only wiki either.

I think you missed Nurglitch's point there Waaaaagh.

And I think you should just stop posting in general as all you seem interested in doing is trolling. Your comments aren't helpful and will more likely lead to John Spencer and GW just saying "screw it, we don't want to work with Dakka on getting a unified FAQ."

So unless you have something to actually contribute, please refrain from posting just to be contrary.

I just want to say thanks for taking the time to talk to us here John, and even if it might not be unanimous I believe most of us appreciate your efforts in creating an accessible DB of your answers.

As for the Wiki, I have no doubt that it'd be possible to share a read only Wiki with us, but that would require time and effort by the IT department that those in charge are unlikely to authorize, let alone request. Yes it would likely be fairly easy, but it assuredly is not a priority correlating past knowledge of GW and other large business policies.

That all being said, point still stands, and thanks John =)

P.S.: I've seen you post elsewhere on the forums too and that's nice to see; that you're here as just another one of us as well.

Ozymandias wrote:. Your comments aren't helpful and will more likely lead to John Spencer and GW just saying "screw it, we don't want to work with Dakka on getting a unified FAQ."

Oh noes?

All I am pointing out that it doesn't have to be high priority. Simply make a Public wiki on the main GW site that only John can edit, but everyone can read. That way people can check to see if their question has been asked.

That involves pretty much zero effort from the IT staff, provided GW have competent IT staff.

Waaagh, just go away please.

You input (really stretching the term here) doesn't seem to be welcome.

John and Yak,

Just let me know what you both come up with, and ill be happy to run with whatever roll you both decide on to go with.

I think it is awesome that John and GW are giving the consideration to all of this. This is something that will benifit us all as players and it is much appreciated.

Waggh.. my personal opinion is to just let this go until this gets off the ground. Once it is running in whatever form it takes, im sure suggestions can be made to improve whatever form that is, but at a later time.

For now, lets give the support needed to do this, rather then being inflamatory to those trying to get this off the ground.

As John said, he is not the IT guy on this.. no point arguing with him about it. Its like going after a layman for simply repeating verbatim what an expert on (name your topic here) said. Its rather pointless and does nothing to improve the situation.

Although this issue has now been dealt with, I thought I'd offer my input (and help things veer slightly off topic) just in case anybody thought there was truth in Waaaaaaagh's statements or wondered how real experts would deal with it.

Waaaaaaagh! wrote:If you really cant have read only access (unlike say, every single wiki I've ever seen) then may I suggest switching to a Wiki Software that does (presumably every other one)?

Funny, WikiMatrix lists 17 different wiki varieties that dont allow read only access, almost all of which are targeted at small corporate installations or rapid deployments. Not to mention the possibility of it being a home grown solution that was made to bolt in to other resources. There are many different formatting modes and storage modes that can make porting content a real pain.

Waaaaaaagh! wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:Or, you know, it's not a technical issue that stops them from opening read-only access to an internal company wiki and something to do with, I don't know, the fact that it's an internal company wiki?

VPN.

Plug holes into an internal company server/system from the big wide world? Have you never heard of security? Not to mention the bandwidth expense and technical overhead. Or as Nurglitch was implying, there are probably dozens of logistical and privacy related issues that are a factor.

Waaaaaaagh! wrote:Simply make a Public wiki on the main GW site that only John can edit, but everyone can read. That way people can check to see if their question has been asked. That involves pretty much zero effort from the IT staff, provided GW have competent IT staff.

'Simply' entails using clustered wiki software with all manner of caching (possibly requiring a separate squid server if we are talking about the traffic the main GW site gets), ensuring there is enough beef in the servers to handle the traffic, ensuring there is a proper backup procedure and system in place, ensuring the software is secure (not so easy with inherently insecure php either), ensuring the authentication process works properly, ensuring there is a security process in place, hoping the wiki software uses the same environment as the rest of the website or having to set up and manage a lot of server side redirection to work around it, getting caching working properly, making sure user interfaces are consistent, porting wiki content from a corporate focused wiki with limited capabilities to a full featured wiki, etc. It is a big job for any IT department, and to do it properly would probably cost a fair amount.

It took 2 months to get Dakka's wiki up and running from an off the shelf package, our traffic is an order of magnitude less than the main GW site, and I am definitely an expert in the area having managed websites that handle well over a million DB hits per hour. 'Simply' is one hell of an understatement.

everything Legoburner said...

legoburner wrote:blah blah blah

oh snap!

Thanks for your input Legoburner. I've often found whenever someone basically says, "It's easy, just..." they usually have no idea what they are talking about.

Ozymandias wrote:I've often found whenever someone basically says, "It's easy, just..." they usually have no idea what they are talking about.

It's one of those key words like "obviously", or "clearly", or key phrases like "...at the end of the day..." or "...in the real world..."

Obviously at the end of the day, he clearly has no idea what he's talking about in the real world.

Ozymandias wrote:Obviously at the end of the day, he clearly has no idea what he's talking about in the real world.

Ozymandias wrote:Obviously at the end of the day, he clearly has no idea what he's talking about in the real world.

Represent!

Ozy: 1
Troll: 0

Ya know, all that bashing of this "troll" just makes you trolls yourselves.

He does raise a valid point, albeit in a rather poor way.

Gwar! wrote:Ya know, all that bashing of this "troll" just makes you trolls yourselves.

He does raise a valid point, albeit in a rather poor way.

*Grabs a stick and looks for Waaaaaaagh!*

I always wanted to be a two-headed troll, can I be the two headed troll?

Lordhat wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Ya know, all that bashing of this "troll" just makes you trolls yourselves.

He does raise a valid point, albeit in a rather poor way.

*Grabs a stick and looks for Waaaaaaagh!*

I always wanted to be a two-headed troll, can I be the two headed troll?

The hell are you on about?

Oh, c'mon Gwar. Obviously my comment was meant to be clearly taken as tongue in cheek.

Damn, did it again...

Nurglitch wrote:

Ozymandias wrote:I've often found whenever someone basically says, "It's easy, just..." they usually have no idea what they are talking about.

It's one of those key words like "obviously", or "clearly", or key phrases like "...at the end of the day..." or "...in the real world..."

Don't forget the two most famous ones.. Never and Always...

Lordhat wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Ya know, all that bashing of this "troll" just makes you trolls yourselves.

He does raise a valid point, albeit in a rather poor way.

*Grabs a stick and looks for Waaaaaaagh!*

I always wanted to be a two-headed troll, can I be the two headed troll?

Some might say that's my department.

Come on, lets get this Dakka FAQ going. lets at least get it started and start putting some info in at least.

dashrendar wrote:Come on, lets get this Dakka FAQ going. lets at least get it started and start putting some info in at least.

I'm waiting for some decisions to be made at work. As soon as I have them, we can finalize how we want to run it.

JohnOSpencer wrote:

dashrendar wrote:Come on, lets get this Dakka FAQ going. lets at least get it started and start putting some info in at least.

I'm waiting for some decisions to be made at work. As soon as I have them, we can finalize how we want to run it.

I am gonna keep on bugging, until we get this going.

Back up again so we can get this FAQ going!

John? any more progress on helping to get this going?

Typical GW Response IMO

"Oh yeah Sure we'll get right on it" followed by MOnths of Silence.

Yet More Proof GW don't give two gaks.