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.

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*