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

Hello,
Answers are below.

Thanks!

John Spencer
Customer Service Specialist

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

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

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

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

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

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

As much as I would like to hold this as a defining proof (see my sig), an e-mail from a faceless GW employee does not a legit ruling make.

lord_sutekh wrote:As much as I would like to hold this as a defining proof (see my sig), an e-mail from a faceless GW employee does not a legit ruling make.

So you are saying an official response from a GW employee who's job is to answer rules questions is not legitimate? It's not legit unless it's FAQed is that it? I mean, that's probably what the response will be to these email rulings right?

olympia wrote:

lord_sutekh wrote:As much as I would like to hold this as a defining proof (see my sig), an e-mail from a faceless GW employee does not a legit ruling make.

So you are saying an official response from a GW employee who's job is to answer rules questions is not legitimate? It's not legit unless it's FAQed is that it? I mean, that's probably what the response will be to these email rulings right?

yes. unfortunately the trend seems to be that the answer you get from one guy will be different to one you get from another guy. the way they come to their rulings is by reading the relevant material and deciding what they think it means. we have all done that and have come up with intelligent arguments on both sides of the debate. since they do not get their information from the developers the best you can hope for from an answer like this is a RAI ruling, which you could have thought of yourself. the service is there to provide a stop-gap to people that really cant decide.

you cannot trust GW customer serices to give you an accurate ruling. it is not canon. it is about as useful as going inot a FLGS and asking a redcoat.

olympia wrote:

lord_sutekh wrote:As much as I would like to hold this as a defining proof (see my sig), an e-mail from a faceless GW employee does not a legit ruling make.

So you are saying an official response from a GW employee who's job is to answer rules questions is not legitimate? It's not legit unless it's FAQed is that it? I mean, that's probably what the response will be to these email rulings right?

Why should it be any different now than it was before? Until GW says that these answers are official, and at that point would hopefully print something in WD every month or on the web that gave answers to the most FAQ's, they aren't.

That's exactly what the response will be to these email rulings.

The Games Devs are the people who write the rules. Replies from anyone else are going to be disregarded unless it's shown that the answers actually come from consultation from the Devs or from some proven standard of knowledge of the rules.

GW's rulezboys have a long history of conflicting answers. Until they can show a track record of providing consistent and (more importantly) correct answers, nobody's going to take them seriously no matter how 'official' GW chooses to brand them.

I requote from my original email
3. Will the responses to #1 and #2 above be consistent from one emailer to the next?
Yes.
Time will tell I guess, but I think this is a move in the right direction. Let me ask, what if GW publishes something in White Dwarf or online that says, "we're not going to FAQ every damn thing. email your questions and accept the responses as official; they will be consistent." That would settle things.

olympia wrote:I requote from my original email
3. Will the responses to #1 and #2 above be consistent from one emailer to the next?
Yes.

Not to be rude, but what exactly does that prove? He's not very well going to say 'no' is he?

Let me ask, what if GW publishes something in White Dwarf or online that says, "we're not going to FAQ every damn thing. email your questions and accept the responses as official; they will be consistent." That would settle things.

It would settle things if the answers actually are consistent, and correct.

But only time will tell, there. Fixing their reputation for unreliable answers is going to take a lot more than them saying 'No, really, our answers are reliable now...'

Look at the new FAQ for the UK GT Heats. Would you use that as canon in a local tournament?

G

Personal opinion.
GW should do a monthly release of FAQ/errata. Released as: free handouts in stores, in WD, online, and even packaged in the boxes with the units in question.

Trasvi wrote:Personal opinion.
GW should do a monthly release of FAQ/errata. Released as: free handouts in stores, in WD, online, and even packaged in the boxes with the units in question.

Realistically you'll get it online, not in print.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Look at the new FAQ for the UK GT Heats. Would you use that as canon in a local tournament?

G

I'd love to check this out. Could you link to this?

So the answer to the third question is a testable hypothesis. Who else is planning to test it?

The last time I saw someone post an email response from a GW Rulezboy, he was saying that Eldar could use fleet to assault out of a falcon after it had moved.

Then GW comes out with their FAQ and it says that you can't use fleet to assault out of a transport after it had moved.

So yeah, I wish their rulings meant anything because it'd make life easier for many people, but this doesn't hold any water.

sourclams:

Maybe if people tested the third answer, we could find out if that was true. If everyone's answer comes back consistent, we would have evidence to the contrary.

You can get the same answer 20 times, all that means is they are being consistent. Until GW says these are official answers, they are not.

I disagree. When I'm on the phone with a customer service representative, say, doing banking, I expect consistency because the service representative is working according to a set of official procedures and documentation. Consistency in customer service is indicative of there being an official procedure or answer that has been set for use with customers.

Until GW, the company, says that the answers that these guys give over the phone are official, then they are not. For all we know there could be two guys working this in their spare time who consult each other on what the rules mean.
Banks have clearly written procedures and rules that they adhere to. If you call the bank, they are all going to tell you that you are going to get charged for overdrawing your account because it's right there in that nifty fee schedule they give you when you open an account, it's not ambiguous or questionable, it's cut and dry. Your account goes in the negative, we charge you for each transaction that put you there. Just like if you whine enough, and they haven't rebated you fees in the past X months or you aren't a chronic offender, they'll rebate it to you. Yes, that's right, they aren't "doing you a favor" or "being nice" they are following the procedure for rebating fees that they are given.
GW rules are not so clear and some are open to interpretation, unlike the policies of a bank.
Again, until GW comes out and says these guys answers are official, they aren't any more official then they were before.
Hopefully they'll keep track of what's being asked, get official answers, and we'll see some kind of monthly FAQ on the site.

mattyboy22:

These weren't answers given over the phone, these were answers given via emailing their customer service. I was trying to say that if we start seeing consistency from GW, then we have evidence that they are implementing normal customer service procedures, i.e. answers given according to official documentation and procedures. Consistency in customer service is an indicator of how that customer service is being carried out, with what tools.

Since you bring it up, GW's rules are cut and dry, and no more open to interpretation than the rules of ordinary arithmetic, so it's an easy matter to track questions and produce an official answer to recurring questions. I believe that is why GW is holding off on the FAQs, because they are waiting to see what sort of problems their fans will invent due to the often poor reading skills of said fans.

That is because, when reading the 5th edition rules, I am struck by how the differences in presentation between the 4th and 5th edition resemble a response to the difficulties so many people exhibited when reading the 4th edition rules.

Nurglitch wrote:mattyboy22:

These weren't answers given over the phone, these were answers given via emailing their customer service.

Ok, so change every instance where I said call to e-mail.

Nurglitch wrote:I was trying to say that if we start seeing consistency from GW, then we have evidence that they are implementing normal customer service procedures, i.e. answers given according to official documentation and procedures. Consistency in customer service is an indicator of how that customer service is being carried out, with what tools.

As I said, for all we know, the tools could be two guys talking about the questions they are asked and giving an answer. Heck, it could just be 1 guy doing this. It;s easy to have consistency when there are only a couple people involved.

Nurglitch wrote:Since you bring it up, GW's rules are cut and dry, and no more open to interpretation than the rules of ordinary arithmetic, so it's an easy matter to track questions and produce an official answer to recurring questions. I believe that is why GW is holding off on the FAQs, because they are waiting to see what sort of problems their fans will invent due to the often poor reading skills of said fans. That is because, when reading the 5th edition rules, I am struck by how the differences in presentation between the 4th and 5th edition resemble a response to the difficulties so many people exhibited when reading the 4th edition rules.

I agree that in several places, they have certainly made attempts to clarify in their rules and it is much more clear and concise. However, there are rules, like God of War and No Retreat, that need further clarification, which to generally be accepted, have to be presented in some official GW format. I GW so chooses to track what this guy (or guys) are hopefully consistently telling people and make that into an official answer then so be it. Hopefully we'll see something like a monthly FAQ on the website.

Go look at the other thread about Deffrollas in this forum. The same guy sent back a response that was the opposite of the first one this OP posted.

So yeah, the email clarifications are still worthless.

sourclams wrote:Go look at the other thread about Deffrollas in this forum. The same guy sent back a response that was the opposite of the first one this OP posted.

Well, no, the same guy appears to say the exact opposite in an email that has been altered to make a point...


But that point is still valid. GW FAQs are 'official' because they're a verifiable source of rules, and everyone uses the same FAQ, so long as they're keeping up with updates.

A printed email can be doctored, and even if it's not, it's still worthless when your opponent pulls out a printed email that says the exact opposite.

Look, I got a responce as well.

Hello,
Answers are below.

Thanks!

John Spencer
Customer Service Specialist

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

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

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

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

Or visit us online at:
www.games-workshop.com
________________________________________
From: me
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 3:07 AM
To: askyourquestion
Subject: Few quick Q's

Hi there,

Just a couple of easy ones to start with:

A). On an Ork Battlewagon, does the Deff Rolla thing inflict D6 S10 hits if it rams into an enemy vehicle?

Sure does!

B). Calgar's got his God of War thing. Does that mean he's subject to No Retreat? Or anyone else using his rule for that matter.

No, he doesn't suffer No Retreat.

C). Are you guys keeping a record of all these Q&A's to ensure that they all match up and are consistant?

Everything is kept in a database to ensure no mistrakes are made. Thanks for your questions!

BYE

I love consistency.

lol----just lol

Except that John Spencer denies having sent out the email that H.B.M.C. posted................. I'm guessing that he (HBMC) posted that to show what anyone can do, ie change whatever answer was received to one they want. Point is tho, that John did post the first set of answers. I would ask that anyone trying to make that particular point in the future to annotate that they changed the email.............

And yes, we all know they are unofficial until FAQ etc etc.

But that's the problem without having an FAQ. Anybody can just write out anything they want on a point of dispute and tout it as "fact" as long as they stick John Spencer's signature info at the top of it. So ultimately, net gain from the askaquestion mailto is 0.

Speaking of consistency:

John Spencer wrote:Hello,

Answers are below.
Thanks!
John Spencer
Customer Service Specialist

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

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

Games Workshop Customer Service is open:

Monday through Friday 9:00 Am to 7:00 PM EST

Contact info:
1-888-248-2335
custserv@games-workshop.com
Or visit us online at: www.games-workshop.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Nurglitch
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 9:19 PM
To: US Customer Service
Subject: Rules Questions


Hey,

I was wondering if I could get an answer to the following three rules questions:

1. Can an Ork Battlewagon use its Deff Rolla when it rams a vehicle? The rules say ramming is a special type of tank shock.

JS: No. It only works in Tank Shock.

2. If Marneus Calgar uses God of War to pass a morale check, is he affected by No Retreat?

JS: Yes.

3. Does the Lash of Submission count as a ranged weapon? If so, does that mean it is a psychic shooting attack?

JS: Codex: Chaos Space Marines is pretty clear that this is a psychic power that is used instead of shooting, thus is a psychic shooting attack.

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

Brice

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

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

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