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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any suggestions for additions or changes?

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Games Development, November 2008

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

These?:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about this:

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kaaihn wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

That's better.

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

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

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




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Iorek wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posters should read all relevant rules before posing a query.



G

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

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

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

G

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

G

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

Emails and words spoken over the phone are not official.

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

does that make it offical? no.

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

5. Rule terms are not defined in the dictionary.

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

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

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

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

G

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

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

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

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

They should be discounted.

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

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

I think that this addendum should be changed:

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

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

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

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

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

- No way, Jose.

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

Nurglitch wrote:

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

I think that this addendum should be changed:

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

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

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

Quoting the entire post because I am.

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

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

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

does that make it offical? no.

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

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

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

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

Gwar! wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- No way, Jose.

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

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

G

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

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

Polonius wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

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

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

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

The only reason I can think of that someone would not want to use GW FAQs is so they are less restricted in their own interpretations.

G

OT people this thread is for comments on the list originally posted and items that might be added as true guidelines for posting and potentially moderating.

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

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

The discussions that we are having here are not official, "this is be the anonymous internets" none of this matters.

the restrictions are not to stifle participation and discussion, they are to limit flaming and spam.
the moderators have a ton of work keeping up with just THIS section of this forum.

If you have something to add to a conversation, do it, but mindless "I agree with X." or flame-wars between people argueing the same two points ad nauseum is just annoying to sort through.

I admit excessive "I agree with Gwar! Person XYZ" can be annoying, but it is needed to some extent. 1 Person can be wrong, 2 or 3 people together are less likely to be.

How about something like this:

"If you read something that you feel is insulting, rude, or derogatory. Do not respond to it and simply report the post to a moderator."

Alot of these flame wars start from something small that someone sees as 'rude' and then all hell breaks loose. If someone really takes offense to a post then don't use our public forums to show your disgust about it. Just PM the guy or a mod.

If you have something to add to a conversation, do it, but mindless "I agree with X." or flame-wars between people argueing the same two points ad nauseum is just annoying to sort through.

Although I think far too restrictive, this is where Nurglitch's One Post Rule would come in handy.

"If you read something that you feel is insulting, rude, or derogatory. Do not respond to it and simply report the post to a moderator."

I'd take that as a rule for all of Dakka actually, except OT where all your butts belong to me. Sounds conspicuously like a rule that could almost be in existence now...

A very wise man I once knew told me: "Majority rules? What if the majority is wrong!?"

I'm sure the intent of these new proposals is not to limit discussion or participation, but that is what is going to happen.

Thank you Axyl, that's what we need here, a call to more personal responsibility.

We do not need more rules or enforcements, because if what Demogerg says, and this is where the mods are enforcing hardest, the what enforment we have now ISN'T WORKING ANYWAY. I still see the same complaints about the thread in general and the same people causing the same problems, and it seems to be getting worse by everyone's own admission; especially the mods.

But the One post thing is stupid, FAR too restrictive. Hell, he wants to prevent people EDITING their posts. That is just insane.

Gwar! wrote:But the One post thing is stupid, FAR too restrictive. Hell, he wants to prevent people EDITING their posts. That is just insane.

Didn't say I recoemmended it.

RXGhost thats why we're sounding items here, to not limit participation. This is a sounding board.

Possible 5th rule( but someone may need to reword it for me ^_^,)

5. Rules change as new codex, rule books, errata and FAQs are published. It used to this way means nothing.

Gwar! wrote:But the One post thing is stupid, FAR too restrictive. Hell, he wants to prevent people EDITING their posts. That is just insane.

rule #1!
I do share the opinion that not being able to edit ones post is a bad idea.
However, a single post per thread sounds possibly workable... especially if it also includes a thumbs up/thumbs down vote on each post, so public opinion is also available.

I think the One Post Rule helps make YMDC better for the people who don't post there now, while stifling those people that like/need that sort of thing.

Polonius wrote:I think the One Post Rule helps make YMDC better for the people who don't post there now, while stifling those people that like/need that sort of thing.

Exactly. I'm baffled as to how one is supposed to debate anything if you're only allowed a single post?

unistoo wrote:

Polonius wrote:I think the One Post Rule helps make YMDC better for the people who don't post there now, while stifling those people that like/need that sort of thing.

Exactly. I'm baffled as to how one is supposed to debate anything if you're only allowed a single post?

easy you lurk and jump out and post rubbish when all the people who can counter it have posted ... yay you win! yay

Gwar! wrote:

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

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

Actually the whole point is that since the Rules Boyz went away and the new system went in place, you get consistent answers.

And please stop with the forgery nonsense. I don't think anyone is pushing an email printout from some random guy be accepted as an answer the same as a FAQ answer. It would only be acceptable once the TO or player themselves email directly and get a response. Or are you trying to suggest that the entire system is invalid because somehow someone is going to hijack Games Workshops email server, and it won't be the correct person responding at the GW side of the email address? Ridiculous nonsense, and if you truly are concerned about that, pick up the phone and ask to speak to the person who's name is in the signature. Look up the main number from information if you are taking it so far as to say it would be a fake phone number going to this mythical hacker hijacking the system instead of the real person.

This system is supported by the same people who provide the answers for the FAQ's. The only people I typically see that bad mouth it (for reasons other than old system prejudice) are the ones that don't agree with a certain answer, and refuse to consider the possibility that they themselves might be in the wrong rather than GW. GW gave us an official system to get all our rules questions answered. Ignoring it because you think you know better than them is just idiotic, in my opinion.

Have you used the new system? I have and I still do not get consistent answers.

If this new system is supposed to be 'official' - why don't they make a freely-available knowledge-base out of all their questions and answers? They would earn huge community kudos and increase their own efficiency in one stroke.

unistoo wrote:If this new system is supposed to be 'official' - why don't they make a knowledge-base out of all their answers? They would earn huge community kudos and increase their own efficiency in one stroke.

Well apparently they do, but somehow have slowed tech guys who can't make a Wiki read only -Shrug-

Kaaihn wrote:
Actually the whole point is that since the Rules Boyz went away and the new system went in place, you get consistent answers.

And please stop with the forgery nonsense. I don't think anyone is pushing an email printout from some random guy be accepted as an answer the same as a FAQ answer. It would only be acceptable once the TO or player themselves email directly and get a response. Or are you trying to suggest that the entire system is invalid because somehow someone is going to hijack Games Workshops email server, and it won't be the correct person responding at the GW side of the email address? Ridiculous nonsense, and if you truly are concerned about that, pick up the phone and ask to speak to the person who's name is in the signature. Look up the main number from information if you are taking it so far as to say it would be a fake phone number going to this mythical hacker hijacking the system instead of the real person.

And right now I am forging your quote to look like you said some random gibberish right here
Asaasjkdh uecnuei cluaenld laiheahnl auyhlajys.
This system is supported by the same people who provide the answers for the FAQ's. The only people I typically see that bad mouth it (for reasons other than old system prejudice) are the ones that don't agree with a certain answer, and refuse to consider the possibility that they themselves might be in the wrong rather than GW. GW gave us an official system to get all our rules questions answered. Ignoring it because you think you know better than them is just idiotic, in my opinion.

See what I did there?
I forged your quote, just like anyone could forge an email respone from GW by simply changing the text and printing it out.

So, If I showed you my ligitimate copy of my codex that says I can get Meltabombs for less than 1 point per model on my Space Wolf Scouts, then showed you the email that I got from GW that confirms its true, would you bother to look it up? even if it was far from Rules as intended, but perfectly clear from Rules as Written?

then what if you contacted GW afterwards and found out that they say no, its supposed to be 4 points per model, what do you do? the game is long over and done, tournament over, event finalized, etc.

Again we're going OT. I may startdeleting posts. There is another thread for other suggestions besides commentary on the above lists.

I'm still for my idea of splitting YMTC into two.

I don't like the one post per thread thing, I don't care about lurking until the end and winning the internets, but telling people how the rule says it should be played.

Frankly, I have little interest in how other people play most rules as well, as I have an intellect of my own.

Demogerg wrote:See what I did there?
I forged your quote, just like anyone could forge an email respone from GW by simply changing the text and printing it out.

Please actually read what I said about the forgery nonsense. You don't accept someones printout. You email them yourself to validate the answer someone is telling you.

Edit: Sorry Frazzled, I hit reply to Demogerg before seeing your post.

Kaaihn wrote:Please actually read what I said about the forgery nonsense. You don't accept someones printout. You email them yourself to validate the answer someone is telling you.

And as I have said, that means nothing on an Internet forum, because your Validation can just as easily be typed out and forged. Or you can just type the opposite of what someone else said.

Gwar! wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:Please actually read what I said about the forgery nonsense. You don't accept someones printout. You email them yourself to validate the answer someone is telling you.

And as I have said, that means nothing on an Internet forum, because your Validation can just as easily be typed out and forged. Or you can just type the opposite of what someone else said.

He's talking about emailing them yourself and getting an answer directly from them for your own validation. Not for posting on public forums.

Gwar! wrote:But the One post thing is stupid, FAR too restrictive. Hell, he wants to prevent people EDITING their posts. That is just insane.

Although... that will teach us to read, reread, and read again our post. It will also help enforce the 3 fact, conclusion, and proposition that is very helpful in these debates.

Currently we have people restating their view (beit RaW or not) over and over and over and over and over for 6 pages.

Ok, you all are getting way too hung up on this one post thing. It was simply an idea in the other thread thrown out there and Frazzled has already stated that this is something that he does not recommend for YMDC anyway.

Key word: other thread - post about it there.

We can throw out as many tenets we want for YMDC, but ultimately the main problem I see here is getting everyone to adhere to those tenets. The mods can do whatever they want, but ultimately it comes down to us to change things for the better. If we really stuck to the first three rules of Dakka then I don't think this thread would even exist in the first place.

Kaaihn wrote:

Demogerg wrote:See what I did there?
I forged your quote, just like anyone could forge an email respone from GW by simply changing the text and printing it out.

Please actually read what I said about the forgery nonsense. You don't accept someones printout. You email them yourself to validate the answer someone is telling you.

If someone makes a claim based on one of the FAQ's or the rulebook, anyone who is interested can easily and quickly locate a copy of the document to verify the quote and the context. In order to do the same for an e-mail from GW, each poster would have to e-mail GW and wait for a response. Even if we ignore the questionable reliability of the answers, the delay in responses and the need for everyone to verify their accuracy individually makes those responses unusable.

Unless there's a mechanism to prove that the message from GW hasn't been forged or edited, the messages have to be treated just as non-authoritative as answers from GW store employees.

I've perused the suggestions, and come up with an update. There will be no sweeping changes to anything here; these are just tenets that posters need to adhere to when posting in YMDC. It will allow other posters to point to these when someone violates them, and helps the mod team by giving us a quick reference as well.

=========
1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give a basis for a statement; without this, there can be no debate.
1a. Don't say that someone is wrong, instead you explain why you think their opinion is wrong. Criticize the opinion, not the person.

2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Askyourquestion@games-workshop.com are technically official, but they are easily spoofed and should not be relied on.

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

4. 4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.

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

I'll let this ruminate for a while longer before making a sticky.

So for the point of rule discussions, we ignore the Rules Support, not because it is faulty, but because it requires each person to validate it. If GW were to release a knowledge base of questions asked, I would accept it.

Iorek wrote:

2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Askyourquestion@games-workshop.com are technically official, but they are easily spoofed and should not be relied on.

The specific wording of this tenet could lead to some arguements.
FAQS are "official house rules" and I think that needs to be specified, the Rulebook, Codices, and GW employees are all official sources, but responses from GW employees are not official rules

Yeah, I know, but they seem so darned useful. I'm going to leave it in for now, but we can remove it if it causes problems.

While I'm not quite in the "one post" rules camp, I do like that a lot better than the current "I'll post until everyone else is too tired of listening to me attack everything and abandons the thread" rule that obtains currently.

I like the rules as given above.

Gwar! wrote:I admit excessive "I agree with Gwar! Person XYZ" can be annoying, but it is needed to some extent. 1 Person can be wrong, 2 or 3 people together are less likely to be.

I think QFT and "i agree" posts should be deleted in general.
Voting is available to gather opinions in this way.

1hadhq wrote:

Gwar! wrote:I admit excessive "I agree with Gwar! Person XYZ" can be annoying, but it is needed to some extent. 1 Person can be wrong, 2 or 3 people together are less likely to be.

I think QFT and "i agree" posts should be deleted in general.
Voting is available to gather opinions in this way.

OT: does anyone else see the Irony of this post?

1hadhq wrote:

Gwar! wrote:I admit excessive "I agree with Gwar! Person XYZ" can be annoying, but it is needed to some extent. 1 Person can be wrong, 2 or 3 people together are less likely to be.

I think QFT and "i agree" posts should be deleted in general.
Voting is available to gather opinions in this way.

I agree
QFT

Harkainos wrote:

1hadhq wrote:

Gwar! wrote:I admit excessive "I agree with Gwar! Person XYZ" can be annoying, but it is needed to some extent. 1 Person can be wrong, 2 or 3 people together are less likely to be.

I think QFT and "i agree" posts should be deleted in general.
Voting is available to gather opinions in this way.

I agree
QFT

+1 ^_^

Tru'dat.

DOUBLE TRUE!

See? Too easy to distract everyone from the Topic.

Since i started it, let me try to get this back On Topic.

- restrictions: 1 post is too much, maybe we could reduce the amount of less well thougth posts with a timeout?
I do not believe its possible to dish out several well thougth contributive posts in a few minutes.

-Stay on topic: Not reading the whole original question is often what divides a thread into 2 factions.
A "how do you play it" thread doesnt need a "thats not the RAW" answer.

-accept 40k as a worldwide distributed game. Different culture and a posters environment ( playing 40k in one of 5 languages supported )
may lead to a different opinion on the subject. A definition of the usable sources would be fine. Would like to add the question if we
apply every errata published by GW ? The company marks their errata often as (.. insert native tongue here.. / english codex ).
How do we treat it here?

Iorek wrote:2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Askyourquestion@games-workshop.com are technically official, but they are easily spoofed and should not be relied on.

I'm trying to understand how not being able to gain instant gratification of validity makes an answer any less correct? Help me out here Iorek.

I can falsely post information and claim it is from a FAQ as easily as posting a fake email. It takes longer for someone to independently validate the email, so on those grounds you should disregard them entirely? That doesn't make sense to me.

I can ring Gwar! via Skype and get an instant answer, but who cares? He's nobody, same as the rest of us. There are two official sources of answers. The FAQ's, and the official email address. The emails are no more spoofable than anything else when you are talking about forum posting.

If someone tells you the answer is x because the FAQ or an email response says it is, you can take that person at their word (be it a forum post or a printout) or you can go validate it yourself, with complete reliability. Go here and look at the FAQ yourself, or copy and paste the question in an email to askyourquestion@games-workshop.com. Reliable validity. No spoofing possible in the validation process.

You cannot validate an Email, ever, because you don't have any proof it was ever sent from the same two people.

Kaaihn, I understand where you're coming from, but from what I've seen the email answers don't necessarily contain the reason for a ruling. If they do, then you may certainly cut and paste the argument here into Dakka (logic can be checked rather easily).

If you fake information from a FAQ, our posters will call you on it. People check sources in YMDC all the time, so that's not a big deal.

Again, these are the tenets of You Make Da Call, not hard and fast rules. They're basically a toolbox to allow posters to cut out some of the crud that clutters up this forum in particular.

Gwar! wrote:You cannot validate an Email, ever, because you don't have any proof it was ever sent from the same two people.

Exactly, also I can open up my email box using the wireless connection at my local game store and show everyone at the store an email from the "Official Source" at GW, and make it read explicitly, "<Insert my name here> automatically wins any game he plays on the roll of a 2 or better on a D6, If a 1 is rolled his opponent just loses."

Its not about instant verification, because you can get 100 people to all ask the same question, even if they all get the same response, guess what? the 101st person with that question will ALSO need to email and ask the same question, he cannot rely on his peers. If GW sees that a specific issue is so pressing that it needs to be posted on the website as an Errata, they will, but untill they do, there is no "official rule." Even if they post it as a FAQ it is still a "Studio House Rule" Otherwise the question should be resolved based on the information that you have at hand, Namely the Rulebook, Codex, and Existing Erratas.

Demogerg wrote:

Gwar! wrote:You cannot validate an Email, ever, because you don't have any proof it was ever sent from the same two people.

Exactly, also I can open up my email box using the wireless connection at my local game store and show everyone at the store an email from the "Official Source" at GW, and make it read explicitly, "<Insert my name here> automatically wins any game he plays on the roll of a 2 or better on a D6, If a 1 is rolled his opponent just loses."

You two are killing me with this level of ignorance. When you send an email to the address on GW's website, and you get a response from that same address with your original in the chain, you have more than reasonable proof that it is from the address you sent to originally. This isn't national security here requiring electronic signatures and encryption.

You have the same expectation the response came from who you sent the original to as you do with anyone you choose to email. The official source for answers is the askyourquestions email address, not specifically one person on the other end. If one answer comes from John Spencer and the next answer comes from Joe Smith who they happen to have hired as John's assistant, as long as they both came in response to an email to the askyourquestions address then it is an answer from the official source they have provided.

And Demogerg, stop with the stupidity about faking something to show someone else. I've clearly stated enough times now that a printout or a forum posting or a forward is not what anyone should be accepting that I have to assume you are intentionally clouding the issue for some personal reason. If someone tells you they got an answer from GW, you open your own mail client and email them and get an answer directly. That is validation, the same as your browsing to the FAQ and reading it yourself is.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Iorek wrote:Kaaihn, I understand where you're coming from, but from what I've seen the email answers don't necessarily contain the reason for a ruling. If they do, then you may certainly cut and paste the argument here into Dakka (logic can be checked rather easily).

If you fake information from a FAQ, our posters will call you on it. People check sources in YMDC all the time, so that's not a big deal.

Again, these are the tenets of You Make Da Call, not hard and fast rules. They're basically a toolbox to allow posters to cut out some of the crud that clutters up this forum in particular.

Yeah, the reasoning is not always provided, but I have found that if you politely ask for the reasoning so you understand how to correctly interpret the rules for next time, it will generally be given. The email address should be as much of a tool in the box to obtain correct answers as the FAQ's. Both are 100% completely independently verifiable.

Kaaihn wrote:You two are killing me with this level of ignorance. When you send an email to the address on GW's website, and you get a response from that same address with your original in the chain, you have more than reasonable proof that it is from the address you sent to originally. This isn't national security here requiring electronic signatures and encryption.

Oh my? The same address?

Well, that settles it, there clearly is no way of faking the "From" Address in an Email. Please forgive my ignorance Lord Kaaihn.

Probably has been mentioned, and it's one of my greatest pet peeves, and sorry for totally interjecting in your running conversation.

Start banning dictionary definitions of words.

Some words have meanings in a 40k rulebook sense, and broader meanings in general english. Things like "casualties" and "mounted" come to mind....

bsohi wrote:Probably has been mentioned, and it's one of my greatest pet peeves, and sorry for totally interjecting in your running conversation.

Start banning dictionary definitions of words.

Some words have meanings in a 40k rulebook sense, and broader meanings in general english. Things like "casualties" and "mounted" come to mind....

Yes, this needs to be added, having just been lambasted for not using the literal sense of mounted.

Misplacement of suggestion, sorry

Gwar! wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:You two are killing me with this level of ignorance. When you send an email to the address on GW's website, and you get a response from that same address with your original in the chain, you have more than reasonable proof that it is from the address you sent to originally. This isn't national security here requiring electronic signatures and encryption.

Oh my? The same address?

Well, that settles it, there clearly is no way of faking the "From" Address in an Email. Please forgive my ignorance Lord Kaaihn.

Again with the fake objections? I didn't say it is impossible to receive an email with a fake from address. I said if you get a response from that same address with your original in the chain, you have more than reasonable proof that it is from the address you sent to originally.

Are you worried about some other dastardly 40K player finding out your email address and sending you fake responses with an exact duplicate of your sent item appended? That would require someone not only knowing the email address you are sending from, but being sophisticated and dedicated enough to capture your emails after you send them so they would have the exact copy to include in the fake response. What makes you think anyone cares enough about you (or anyone else) enough to go to that much effort?

If you are that paranoid about your email security you shouldn't be using standard email, ever.

No, you miss the point. I am saying that anyone can fake a response, so emails to them should hold no wait in discussions.

The FAQs are published... come on it's not like someone is saying they had a conversation on the London tube with Phil Kelly. These are documents. Get over it and you will be happy you did.

G


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Demogerg wrote:

Gwar! wrote:You cannot validate an Email, ever, because you don't have any proof it was ever sent from the same two people.

Exactly, also I can open up my email box using the wireless connection at my local game store and show everyone at the store an email from the "Official Source" at GW, and make it read explicitly, "<Insert my name here> automatically wins any game he plays on the roll of a 2 or better on a D6, If a 1 is rolled his opponent just loses."

Good luck with that... it could help improve your game though.

G

Gwar! wrote:No, you miss the point. I am saying that anyone can fake a response, so emails to them should hold no wait in discussions.

Responses aren't faked. Original emails are faked. People receive random spam with fake from email addresses all the time.

What you are suggesting doesn't happen. Not that it can't, just that it requires sophistication and personal attention. Outside actual espionage, you should have no fear that an original email you send will come back as a response from a fake source.

-Facepalm- You still miss the point. I can spoof an Email MYSELF sating "Phil Kelly Likes bananas" from GW and claim it is official.

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

I think this one could do with a bit more explanation for new users. I realise they're capitalised, but a bit of a heads up that 'Rules as Written' and 'How You Would Play It' are styles of YMDC thread would help avoid new posters from sitting there wondering why they can't just play by the rules...

insaniak wrote:would help avoid new posters from sitting there wondering why they can't just play by the rules...

New Posters? I wonder this every day I look at this forum.

Gwar! wrote:-Facepalm- You still miss the point. I can spoof an Email MYSELF sating "Phil Kelly Likes bananas" from GW and claim it is official.

Have you been reading nothing?! Who cares if you do?! If someone tells you GW gave x answer, you can go validate it yourself.

If you show me a spoofed email, and I go independently validate it and get a different answer, I know one of those answers must be wrong. That is the whole point of independent validation. What you are saying is akin to doctoring a FAQ and bringing it to your local store. I don't have to take what you show me at face value, I can go independently validate it for myself.

Let me try and make a nice clear summary here.

-Email answers are the same level of official as FAQ's.
-You are never obligated to take an answer not printed in a rulebook as valid unless you independently verify it yourself.
-FAQ's can be independently verified at Games-workshop.com.
-Emailed responses can be independently verified by you yourself asking that same question from your own email account to askyourquestion@games-workshop.com.

Hopefully that clears this nonsense up.

Kaaihn wrote: What you are saying is akin to doctoring a FAQ and bringing it to your local store. I don't have to take what you show me at face value, I can go independently validate it for myself.

That's going to make your game take a while...

And what happens then when we have 2 Different answers? How do I know YOU haven't faked the email?

Gwar! wrote:And what happens then when we have 2 Different answers? How do I know YOU haven't faked the email?

Once more than one person shows up with the same answer, it'll be obvious who doctored an e-mail. If you mean you both got conflicitng answers from the source, e-mail again asking for clarification.

bsohi wrote:Probably has been mentioned, and it's one of my greatest pet peeves, and sorry for totally interjecting in your running conversation.

Start banning dictionary definitions of words.

Some words have meanings in a 40k rulebook sense, and broader meanings in general english. Things like "casualties" and "mounted" come to mind....

Lets just make a practice of banning anything that can be used against us in an arguement, last week I had someone show me an Errata that showed me I was wrong about something, does that mean I should push to have Erratas banned from the site.......

The dictionary has been used many times by both sides in many different threads, I feel it should be just as valid as any other official source for determining what a word means.....

Kaaihn, the point here is that even if you cut-and-paste an entire email and post it up here, there's no guarantee to the other readers that it's authentic. Yes, another poster could email the same address, but it's not a level of verification that we want to get into here at Dakka.

Regardless, I'm leaving that tenet as it stands (for now).

Insaniak, I will add those definitions. Thank you for the suggestion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tenets edited. Also added a line about the dictionary definitions.

Kaaihn wrote:You two are killing me with this level of ignorance.
And Demogerg, stop with the stupidity about faking something to show someone else.

I resent you calling me Ignorant and Stupid.

The fact that you have repeatedly failed to see the point that I am coming from does not give you the right to dismiss my claim and insult me.

all that I am trying to say is that there is a difference between a source and a rule.

Rulebook, Codex, Errata, FAQ, and GW Employee are all Official Sources.
Rulebook, Codex, Errata are all Official Rules.

the FAQ is commonly taken as a house rule for FLGS, and it can in general, be expected to be taken as an rule, it is not, however actually an official rule. There is a clear distinction here that GW admits to.

The GW Employees email system can be used for rules clarification to decide on how to house-rule your problem, however, their response is NOT an Official Rule because they are just either clarifing something that you missed in the text (which means the official rule was there all along), or giving an example of a house rule that they have come up with to solve the problem. (in which case it is a perfect example of the soft material like they state on their website)

If an Issue comes up repeatedly they may add the appropriate response to the FAQ section of the website, and here is a key bit------
If FAQS are not taken as Official Rules, then the responses to the not so Frequently asked questions can also not be taken as official rules

The Example given about email spoofing was just an example, and you misunderstood the point completely.

Yes, you can email GW and verify on a ruling if you would like, but when your response is different from mine, and they both appear 100% legit, what do you do? Rule it however you want. Its a game, and these are house-rule solutions.




Short read version

GW Employees are a Less viable source than FAQS, and GW admits that FAQS are not Official Rules.

Iorek wrote:Kaaihn, the point here is that even if you cut-and-paste an entire email and post it up here, there's no guarantee to the other readers that it's authentic. Yes, another poster could email the same address, but it's not a level of verification that we want to get into here at Dakka.

I completely agree. There should be no effort to obtain validation on a forum. The point of the forum is for someone to raise a question, and someone to post an answer.

-If the answer posted is from a FAQ, it is up to the individual reader to validate the answer was posted correctly.
-If the answer posted is from an email, it is up to the individual reader to validate the answer was posted correctly.
-If the answer posted is just some guy on the internet's opinion, it is up to the individual reader how much value he wants to give it.

I think that just about everybody can agree that FAQs are not rules in the same way that what is written in your codex or 5th ed core book is a rule.

I also think that just about everybody can agree that in any setting where such a rules contention would matter (tournament), the FAQs are basically going to be adopted as rules in the same way that you have to follow what's printed in your codex or core book.

The obvious correlation is to treat FAQs as core rules for rule discussion purposes, but I know there are those who won't be dragged kicking and screaming into compliance.

DJ Illuminati wrote:

bsohi wrote:Probably has been mentioned, and it's one of my greatest pet peeves, and sorry for totally interjecting in your running conversation.

Start banning dictionary definitions of words.

Some words have meanings in a 40k rulebook sense, and broader meanings in general english. Things like "casualties" and "mounted" come to mind....

Lets just make a practice of banning anything that can be used against us in an arguement, last week I had someone show me an Errata that showed me I was wrong about something, does that mean I should push to have Erratas banned from the site.......

The dictionary has been used many times by both sides in many different threads, I feel it should be just as valid as any other official source for determining what a word means.....

Dictionary definitions have no real place in a discussion on rules. GW could say the word "banana" means "Shooting" in their game.

Demogerg wrote:all that I am trying to say is that there is a difference between a source and a rule.

You did indeed start out by stating that there is a difference between a source and a rule. Third response from you in though on this topic, and you were on the bandwagon with Gwar! going on about how you could forge the response so they should not be included in any form of discussion. I am referring to your post where you quoted me and then altered the quote.

When I repeatedly say people shouldn't take rules not printed in the books that someone may have altered at face value, and you and Gwar! then repeatedly respond how you don't want emailed answers as part of a discussion because what you are seeing could be faked, it quickly begins to look like ignorance on your parts.

How much clearer can I make it that anything someone tells or shows you that they claim came from an official GW source should be validated by you before accepting it?

Sourclams above is completely correct in his summation. An official answer is an official answer. Not rules in the same way the books are, but validated official answers are generally taken as canon in many tournaments and games. Intentionally ignoring them is ridiculous.

Gwar!, you, myself, and everyone else on all these boards don't know the game better than the developers. When the developers (or their assigned representatives) give an answer, it's pretty arrogant and silly to ignore it because you think you know better. At least in my opinion.

Kaaihn wrote:Gwar!, you, myself, and everyone else on all these boards don't know the game better than the developers. When the developers (or their assigned representatives) give an answer, it's pretty arrogant and silly to ignore it because you think you know better. At least in my opinion.

Ah. See, now, you're wrong.

I'm afraid that some of the people on these boards, Gwar included, actually DO know the rules better than some of the people involved with the backstage of the game.

Sorry to burst your bubble...as an example, the playtesters regularly 'forget' to play that Craters that in no way block LOS don't grant a Cover Save to a unit 3" behind them.

The bollocks we routinely see in WD should reinforce this, because, as with an email, for all you know this is just my opinion masquerading as fact. Still, I'd like to assure you that I wouldn't have posted it if I wasn't convinced it were true.

what happens if i go and reprint the entire rulebook with changes to suit me, and bring it into the store. then i can show you the rules, and claim everyone else has the wrong/faked rules and are wrong!!

How badly do you need to win your game of toy soldiers?

I agree with Kaaign. the rules query email is the closest thing we'll get to official answers, we may as well use it.

No, the BRB is the closest, tied with the Codicies, and Erratas. You seem to be missing the point a little, that the email system is unreliable. I sent in one 5 pages long and got no response. I'm not being impatient, I sent it 3 months ago.

How about adding in a suggestion that posters check the relevant rulebook/codex and the GW FAQ before posting, with a link to the GW documents?

It seems that a lot of rules questions come from people who aren't actually even aware of the GW FAQs' existence, so pointing out where to find them would potentially be helpful.

insaniak wrote:How about adding in a suggestion that posters check the relevant rulebook/codex and the GW FAQ before posting, with a link to the GW documents?

It seems that a lot of rules questions come from people who aren't actually even aware of the GW FAQs' existence, so pointing out where to find them would potentially be helpful.

Although, that SHOULD be automatic. I mean, if you know Dakka exists, how the feth do you not know about the GW site?

I want to see a spoofed FAQ just for a chuckle. Also any instruction how to do it pls PM me.



G

Kaaihn wrote:

Gwar! wrote:-Facepalm- You still miss the point. I can spoof an Email MYSELF sating "Phil Kelly Likes bananas" from GW and claim it is official.

Have you been reading nothing?! Who cares if you do?! If someone tells you GW gave x answer, you can go validate it yourself.

If you show me a spoofed email, and I go independently validate it and get a different answer, I know one of those answers must be wrong. That is the whole point of independent validation. What you are saying is akin to doctoring a FAQ and bringing it to your local store. I don't have to take what you show me at face value, I can go independently validate it for myself.

Let me try and make a nice clear summary here.

-Email answers are the same level of official as FAQ's.
-You are never obligated to take an answer not printed in a rulebook as valid unless you independently verify it yourself.
-FAQ's can be independently verified at Games-workshop.com.
-Emailed responses can be independently verified by you yourself asking that same question from your own email account to askyourquestion@games-workshop.com.

Hopefully that clears this nonsense up.

Green Blow Fly wrote:I want to see a spoofed FAQ just for a chuckle.

Ask and ye shall receive

The newest Rulebook FAQ contains valuable extra errata which we shall all be forced to adopt, I'm afraid

(This is a bit rushed, but you get the idea)

Nice, although I was hoping for a more elaborate change.

Elessar wrote:Nice, although I was hoping for a more elaborate change.

I thought obvious would get the point across quicker

Elessar wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:Gwar!, you, myself, and everyone else on all these boards don't know the game better than the developers. When the developers (or their assigned representatives) give an answer, it's pretty arrogant and silly to ignore it because you think you know better. At least in my opinion.

Ah. See, now, you're wrong.

I'm afraid that some of the people on these boards, Gwar included, actually DO know the rules better than some of the people involved with the backstage of the game.

Sorry to burst your bubble...as an example, the playtesters regularly 'forget' to play that Craters that in no way block LOS don't grant a Cover Save to a unit 3" behind them.

The bollocks we routinely see in WD should reinforce this, because, as with an email, for all you know this is just my opinion masquerading as fact. Still, I'd like to assure you that I wouldn't have posted it if I wasn't convinced it were true.

Your looking at it from the wrong perspective I think. No one here has specific knowledge of how the rules are meant to work. All we have are logical deductions. The fact that different people come to two different logical conclusions about the same point means we can't know the rules as well as the writer, since he knows which conclusion is accurate.

I don't expect even the authors to have the sheer amount of material covered in 40K perfectly memorized. I expect them to understand the core functions so they can accurately answer any question posed.

No one here, including Gwar! (who also gets things wrong occasionally like everyone else), has those insights with any proof of certainty. Hence why I say it's ridiculous to believe you know better. When we are given an avenue into answers from the people that do have these insights, we should be using them.

Elessar wrote:Although, that SHOULD be automatic.

It should be, but it isn't. Which is why I thought that suggesting it in the forum guidelines might help nudge people in the right direction.

I mean, if you know Dakka exists, how the feth do you not know about the GW site?

It's not really a case of not knowing the GW site exists, more a case of people not having spent enough time wandering around on it to have found where the FAQs are buried.

insaniak wrote:

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

I think this one could do with a bit more explanation for new users. I realise they're capitalised, but a bit of a heads up that 'Rules as Written' and 'How You Would Play It' are styles of YMDC thread would help avoid new posters from sitting there wondering why they can't just play by the rules...

In my opinion, for clarity, the posts in YMDC should have tags like {RAW} so that you know its a RAW, and RAW only discussion; and {HDYP} so you know its a 'how do you play' discussion. That way, the RAW folks don't need to bother with the HDYP threads, and the RAI crowd don't have to bother with RAW threads.

Wasn't there a system for arguing RAW already being used by YMDC before the last switch, something with: premise, premise 2, something, conclusion? And the only discussion was to argue those points? Or am I completely mis-remembering?

I have noticed quite a few questions recently that have to do with people trying to find urgent answers because they don't have their codex with them, and sometimes just because they don't want to spend the time looking it up for themselves. Should these threads be disallowed? I know YMDC is commonly for weird issues with the rules, but do these types of threads have their place? I know that if there was a chat function people could get short questions answered easily, but that's probably too much to ask. Suffice to say I get frustrated when someone who has the codex right in front of them posts a thread up wanting a quick answer to a rule problem simply because they are too lazy to deal with it themselves.

Cruentus wrote:In my opinion, for clarity, the posts in YMDC should have tags like {RAW} so that you know its a RAW, and RAW only discussion; and {HDYP} so you know its a 'how do you play' discussion. That way, the RAW folks don't need to bother with the HDYP threads, and the RAI crowd don't have to bother with RAW threads.

The problem with that is that threads quite often wind up discussing both... for example where we start out discussing the RAW, and go from there into discussing how to actually play it in cases where the RAW is a little odd.

Kaaihn wrote:
Let me try and make a nice clear summary here.

-Email answers are the same level of official as FAQ's.
-You are never obligated to take an answer not printed in a rulebook as valid unless you independently verify it yourself.
-FAQ's can be independently verified at Games-workshop.com.
-Emailed responses can be independently verified by you yourself asking that same question from your own email account to askyourquestion@games-workshop.com.

Hopefully that clears this nonsense up.

But what's the point?

I have an email from them that says Telion confers Stealth on his squad.
"In our opinion, Sgt Telion's Stealth rule applies to the entire squad. Keep in mind this is not official, but our opinion as veteran hobbyist. We will forward the question along to be considered for a FAQ."

I have another email dated approx a month later that says Telion does not confer Stealth on his squad.
"Q. Does Telion give his unit stealth?
A.Officially, no. But this could change in a FAQ, as it seems kinda useless otherwise.

When I queried this:
Sorry about that. We had made a ruling, then had further discussion and changed our mind. The answers is: No, he does not grant his squad the scout USR. Again, this may change with a future FAQ.

John does a pretty good job of answering people's questions quickly but he's no better at interpreting the tricky questions than many of the people on here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:

Cruentus wrote:In my opinion, for clarity, the posts in YMDC should have tags like {RAW} so that you know its a RAW, and RAW only discussion; and {HDYP} so you know its a 'how do you play' discussion. That way, the RAW folks don't need to bother with the HDYP threads, and the RAI crowd don't have to bother with RAW threads.

The problem with that is that threads quite often wind up discussing both... for example where we start out discussing the RAW, and go from there into discussing how to actually play it in cases where the RAW is a little odd.

Exactly - these are the threads most likely to become contentious (apart from the ones where someone's wrong and just refuses to listen) as there's no right answer at the end. What it needs at that point is to be locked and have a little executive summary added (e.g. "Conclusion - RAW is vague. Play as xxx, yyy or zzz)

Scott-S6 wrote:But what's the point?

I have an email from them that says Telion confers Stealth on his squad.
"In our opinion, Sgt Telion's Stealth rule applies to the entire squad. Keep in mind this is not official, but our opinion as veteran hobbyist. We will forward the question along to be considered for a FAQ."

I have another email dated approx a month later that says Telion does not confer Stealth on his squad.
"Q. Does Telion give his unit stealth?
A.Officially, no. But this could change in a FAQ, as it seems kinda useless otherwise.

When I queried this:
Sorry about that. We had made a ruling, then had further discussion and changed our mind. The answers is: No, he does not grant his squad the scout USR. Again, this may change with a future FAQ.

John does a pretty good job of answering people's questions quickly but he's no better at interpreting the tricky questions than many of the people on here.

Omg, Inconsistencies? NEVAR!

Scott-S6 wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:
Let me try and make a nice clear summary here.

-Email answers are the same level of official as FAQ's.
-You are never obligated to take an answer not printed in a rulebook as valid unless you independently verify it yourself.
-FAQ's can be independently verified at Games-workshop.com.
-Emailed responses can be independently verified by you yourself asking that same question from your own email account to askyourquestion@games-workshop.com.

Hopefully that clears this nonsense up.

But what's the point?

I have an email from them that says Telion confers Stealth on his squad.
"In our opinion, Sgt Telion's Stealth rule applies to the entire squad. Keep in mind this is not official, but our opinion as veteran hobbyist. We will forward the question along to be considered for a FAQ."

I have another email dated approx a month later that says Telion does not confer Stealth on his squad.
"Q. Does Telion give his unit stealth?
A.Officially, no. But this could change in a FAQ, as it seems kinda useless otherwise.

When I queried this:
Sorry about that. We had made a ruling, then had further discussion and changed our mind. The answers is: No, he does not grant his squad the scout USR. Again, this may change with a future FAQ.

John does a pretty good job of answering people's questions quickly but he's no better at interpreting the tricky questions than many of the people on here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:

Cruentus wrote:In my opinion, for clarity, the posts in YMDC should have tags like {RAW} so that you know its a RAW, and RAW only discussion; and {HDYP} so you know its a 'how do you play' discussion. That way, the RAW folks don't need to bother with the HDYP threads, and the RAI crowd don't have to bother with RAW threads.

The problem with that is that threads quite often wind up discussing both... for example where we start out discussing the RAW, and go from there into discussing how to actually play it in cases where the RAW is a little odd.

Exactly - these are the threads most likely to become contentious (apart from the ones where someone's wrong and just refuses to listen) as there's no right answer at the end. What it needs at that point is to be locked and have a little executive summary added (e.g. "Conclusion - RAW is vague. Play as xxx, yyy or zzz)

Ah i can explain this ...

Telion does not confer Stealth ... but Stealth effects every model in the unit and gives them +1 to their cover save.

... difference is if Telion confer Stealth then every one would have the stealth rule. Unless this also comes with a "till he dies" the squad would never lose stealth. On the other hand if only he has stealth and dies then the unit no long has any one with the stealth rule so no longer gets +1 to their cover save. Simples

======================

Now why is it no one like, dictionary definitions? I agree that you can't just whip them out, but you can't assume that every one knows the meaning of a word. When they don't and it is not give a meaning in the any of the rules where else but the dictionary can you turn for a definition of its meaning? Take wield ... myself and gwar got in a massive debate about how many weapons can Marneus Calgar wield. If used right a dictionary definition can be a useful tool. Like all things it can be miss used.

In my opinion, there's only one critical thing I would add to this discussion

*cough*

IT NEEDS MORE COWBELL

Cruentus wrote:Wasn't there a system for arguing RAW already being used by YMDC before the last switch, something with: premise, premise 2, something, conclusion? And the only discussion was to argue those points? Or am I completely mis-remembering?

Yeah, Centurian99 posted a great piece on how to argue in YMDC. I've actually already asked about this, but no one seems to have a copy anymore. I think it died with the NukeDotNet board.

Since this whole thing is (again) devolving into an argument (this time about emails and FAQs) I'm locking the thread.