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.

Okay, here's the plan. GW apparently has a new customer service email dedicated to answering rules queries. Previous services such as the Rules Boyz and Mail Order Trollz weren't simply disappointing, but disillusioning, leading many people to jump to the conclusion that GW cannot consistently support their rules. But if someone professes to change, it is stupid to affirm or deny that they have changed by only considering their behaviour prior to the professed change. That is why I am proposing that people send an email to the following address:

askyourquestion@games-workshop.com

In your email, ask whether:

1. The Ork Deff Rolla gets D6 S10 hits on vehicle that it Rams.

2. If a unit that chooses to pass a Morale check using the God of War rule suffers from No Retreat!

3. Some rules question which you are 100% certain of the answer.

Then, when you have received your answers, answer the poll based on the answers received to questions #1 and #2, and post both your question #3 and the answer it received.

In doing so, we will build a gauge of how consistent the new service is, and thus how useful it is. This consistency will be checked by whether the service can answer correctly the obvious questions we put to it.

Obviously this will only work if people don't post false results, but considering some people are just that sort of person, I think results of 90% consistent will be sufficient to consider them reliable, and 97% to consider them authoritative.

The answers I received were:

1. No. It only works in Tank Shock.

2. Yes.

And to my question about whether the Lash of Submission counts as a ranged weapon, and if so does that mean it is a psychic shooting attack:

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

Emailed them and received a response in mere minutes:

1. Does a unit that chooses to pass a Morale check using the God of War rule suffer from No Retreat?

Yes.


2. Does the Ork Deff Rolla get the D6 S10 hits on vehicles that it Rams since it is classified as a type of tank shock?

No. It only works with Tank Shock.

Axyl, who was your e-mail from?

They are going to realise pretty quickly when everyone has those two questions that something is up, maybe they will just send an e-mail to the developers FIX YOUR FAQs GUYS

so I got my reply, but once again it's from john spencer who replied to both olympia and nurglitch's questions. So obviously they are going to be the same answer

Drunkspleen:

Maybe a desire for consistency is why John Spencer is handling all of the questions.

Maybe John Spencer is an alias as part of the same form letter template they use for this too.

Maybe for my Question #3 I'll ask if there's anyone who isn't John Spencer around to answer this stuff.

admittedly nurglitch you may be right, I think it would be hard to dismiss the rules clarifications given by an individual person who GW has appointed to the task of clarifying rules questions.

but one person obviously cannot work 24 hours a day, so either we will eventually get a reply from a different representative, if people continue to test the service, or we will continue to get only John Spencer replies indicating it's either a generic template name, or GW has employed necrons as their customer service team.

edit: While consistency is important, and a useful measure of this service, I think the better one would be a recorded list of all the responses they have provided with which we can compare the answers with the answers provided in future FAQs, I think if things are being FAQd the same way this customer service team is answering, we have a pretty darn reliable service.

Currently John Spencer is the only person answering emails.

He will only be answering them during work hours during the week.

He is amused by these threads.

Enjoy!

That's understandable. He's being bombarded by a rediculous amount of nerd-skepticism at the moment. I would find it amusing too.

Brice

Nurglitch wrote:Okay, here's the plan. GW apparently has a new customer service email dedicated to answering rules queries. Previous services such as the Rules Boyz and Mail Order Trollz weren't simply disappointing, but disillusioning, leading many people to jump to the conclusion that GW cannot consistently support their rules. But if someone professes to change, it is stupid to affirm or deny that they have changed by only considering their behaviour prior to the professed change. That is why I am proposing that people send an email to the following address.

Instead of trying some sort of social experiment, why not email this gentleman and ask him how official his rulings are? Do his answers carry the full weight of the design studio and as such can we expect his rulings to be consistently applied at their Grand Tournaments?

ask the basterd something personal as well. like do you have kids? are they also named john spencer, where did you meet your life mate. things of that nature. maybe that will help to clarify if this is just a computer looking for similar questions and answering them accordingly. GW has been so damn cheap lately i cont really see them actually paying people to do something a robot can do for free.

KingCracker wrote:ask the basterd something personal as well. like do you have kids? are they also named john spencer, where did you meet your life mate. things of that nature. maybe that will help to clarify if this is just a computer looking for similar questions and answering them accordingly. GW has been so damn cheap lately i cont really see them actually paying people to do something a robot can do for free.

Wow. Repress angst much?

Yakface wrote:Instead of trying some sort of social experiment, why not email this gentleman and ask him how official his rulings are? Do his answers carry the full weight of the design studio and as such can we expect his rulings to be consistently applied at their Grand Tournaments?

Yes, I'd thought about that, but the problem with that is precisely the problem often called the "Liar's Paradox", whereby the self-referential nature of any possible answer precludes any definitive 'official' answer. Hence empirical test is the only way to see what actually happens.

Liar's paradox only comes into play if you assume that he's going to say: "Yes, these are official rulings", then gives inconsistent answers from then on.

If he replies "No these rulings are not official and you cannot count on it being ruled this way at a GW event". Liar's paradox solved, because regardless of the truth of the situation (pro-tip: there is no truth here), a non-official ruling is just that.

let's give it a chance first.

G

Actually I'm curious that, apparently, two people have gotten inconsistent replies. If those two reports are true, and not simply 'outliers', then the purported consistency of the new service may be in question.

there is a john spencer and I see no reason why he would answer differently. Setting him up to fail is not cool at all.

G

I don't see why he would answer differently either, but apparently at least two people have received different answers. Because they didn't post them to confirm that the answers were indeed inconsistent and from Mr. Spencer, it may be right to discount them as the usual noise that polls like this acquire.

As for setting him up to fail, I fail to see how checking the consistency of the rules answer service is setting John Spencer up to fail at his job. Could you please explain how this could be the case?

Then you are doing it unintentionally.

G

Please explain how I am, intentionally or otherwise, setting John Spencer up to fail at his job.

You ask everyone to ask him the same set of questions then point out if there is a discrepancy.

G

And that's setting John Spencer up to fail at his job how, exactly? Am I fixing the results? Have I made the questions impossible to answer consistently? Have I not made provision for false reports?

You have missed my point.

G

So what's your point?

You should have been considerate enough to let him know. I am not knocking you by any means and I don't mean to come across as gruff but this just seems a bit underhanded to be completely honest. What if people did the same to you and you were demoted or fired from your job as a results? I would send John an apology.

G

I have sent my email. Will have to wait though.

As for the questions, I find it funny as they both appear to be 100% covered in the rules by me. But what the hell, have to have an answer if 2 people dont agree.

Green Blow Fly:

Letting him know beforehand would prejudice the experiment. Likewise, we have no evidence that the results of this experiment will be used in his performance evaluation. Whether I would like it if people did it to me is no sound basis for an ethical judgment, and as an ethicist I see no ethical difficulties with this experiment.

Darkness:

Same here, and I believe that the answers to them can be decided entirely objective via reference to the rules, as my conclusions on the answers to these questions is a matter of public record. But two of the questions I asked were posted by the posted named Olympia, so I figured I should ask the same questions if testing for consistency. Blame him.

Now don't go placing the blame on someone else shoulders. You started this thread so be responsible is my humble advice.

Again I find it very hard to believe John would answer the same question with a different answer. I am going to give him a call this week and tip him off in regard to this thread. It's unfair what you are doing at his expense. Again I don't mean to come off as heavy handed towards you or taking the high ground so to speak... so I hope you understand where I am coming from on this regard Nurglitch.

G

Placing blame? What on Earth are you talking about? There's no blame, and I'm not placing any. I think I'd understand where you were coming from if I could figure who you were talking to and what you were talking about.

As for whether Mr. Spencer would answer the same question inconsistently is irrelevant, especially if he isn't the only person answering rules queries by email.