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.

Well there's the thing, there are no more rulesboys, and the replacement customer service seems to be consistent.

Again, a GW Rulezboy responded to one of my friends on a question about Eldar fleet+assaulting out of moving transports.

He said yes when conventional wisdom said no.

Then GW FAQ's the issue 2 months later.

They said no.

So yes, solicited input from GW has been pretty un-useful.

sourclams wrote:Again, a GW Rulezboy responded to one of my friends on a question about Eldar fleet+assaulting out of moving transports.

He said yes when conventional wisdom said no.

Then GW FAQ's the issue 2 months later.

They said no.

So yes, solicited input from GW has been pretty un-useful.

thats probably why theyre killing the rulezboyz.

sourclams:

Yes, a GW rulesboy answered a question falsely. If there are no more rulesboys and there is a new customer service for answering rules, should you not give it a try, if only to justify your opinion? What's the worst that could happen?

It would be helpful if you could corroborate the results that others have gotten (though switch the questions around so they're not blatant copy-pastes), so we test whether the new service is an improvement on the old.

Here's the address:

askyourquestion@games-workshop.com

Insaniak,

Except that an answer provided by a GW employee, who's sole job it is to answer rules related questions, is certainly more valid than one that doesn't carry their stamp of approval, and certainly for everyone that reads the ruling the issues should be laid to rest, at least until GW changes the ruling through another means. Moving this service to an e-mail based format is only going to serve to make it better and more conistent.

Brice

BBeale wrote:Except that an answer provided by a GW employee, who's sole job it is to answer rules related questions,

That's just it: is that their actual job?

I've seen nothing to indicate that the change is anything other than a name change. Is it still just some guy in mail order answering questions, or someone with actual rules knowledge, and actual authority to make judgement calls?

Moving this service to an e-mail based format is only going to serve to make it better and more conistent.

It's been email based before. It was snail-mail based before that. And it wasn't any more consistent.

insaniak:

Might I suggest that given the consistency of answers given by GW's rules support service is an empirical matter, it might be worth testing, so you're not just relying on established prejudice?

At the end of the day we now have clear, unambiguous answers to issues that we formerly did not. How is that a bad thing? Insaniak, send them an e-mail. If you get a different set of answers, then you have something to gripe/be mistrustful about. Until then, these issues have been dealt with as far as the sommunity should be concerned.

Brice

BBeale wrote:At the end of the day we now have clear, unambiguous answers to issues that we formerly did not. How is that a bad thing? Insaniak, send them an e-mail. If you get a different set of answers, then you have something to gripe/be mistrustful about. Until then, these issues have been dealt with as far as the sommunity should be concerned.

Brice

What people need are clear, unambiguous, authoritative and consistent answers. What reason do I have as a fellow player to consider a possibly either edited or falsified e-mail as a legitimate answer to a rules question? Even if a given message isn't a fake, there's still no indication what method was used to answer the question.

A certain other miniature wargaming company has a forum where official answers are given for everyone to see, and answers are posted by the head rules guy and his minions. It's amazing how that eliminates problems like this in their game.

As some people guessed, yes, I completely made up that E-mail I posted on the last page.

It was my way of proving a point that not only are these "rulings" in no way binding until they are published, but they can also be faked by anyone.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:As some people guessed, yes, I completely made up that E-mail I posted on the last page.

It was my way of proving a point that not only are these "rulings" in no way binding until they are published, but they can also be faked by anyone.

BYE

We are not trying to test whether or not you can cheat. I'm sure you can whether it's by moving your models an extra 1/2" or by creating fake emails. So rest assured, even if the GW customer service is clear and consistent you will still be able to abuse the game in myriad ways.

Wait. Because someone (generic someone, not HBMC who isn't trying to pass off his "ruling" as real) might be unethical enough (not to mention pathetic enough) to falsify an e-mail from GW, we shouldn't rely on this new system? And why is it important that we know the method used to reach the decision? We're rarely given that information in the FAQs. Why start requiring it now? It should be good enough that GW says "this is how the rule is applied."

Brice

olympia wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:As some people guessed, yes, I completely made up that E-mail I posted on the last page.

It was my way of proving a point that not only are these "rulings" in no way binding until they are published, but they can also be faked by anyone.

BYE

We are not trying to test whether or not you can cheat. I'm sure you can whether it's by moving your models an extra 1/2" or by creating fake emails. So rest assured, even if the GW customer service is clear and consistent you will still be able to abuse the game in myriad ways.

I think the point he is trying to make is, say you produce a printout of an e-mail saying that Deffrolla's can't be used to Tank Shock. At the same time I produce one saying they can. How can you prove with any validity, on the spot in the middle of a game, that mine is the doctored e-mail and not yours?

If consistency can be established as a fact for this new service, then you'll know if someone is trying to pass off a doctored e-mail simply by virtue of the fact that the answer differs from the one that you have.

Brice

BBeale wrote:If consistency can be established as a fact for this new service, then you'll know if someone is trying to pass off a doctored e-mail simply by virtue of the fact that the answer differs from the one that you have.

Brice

But how can you prove it.

Why would you ever have to prove it? If you're playing a casual game, walk away. If this is a GW sponsored tournament, the rules judges will provide the same ruling, assuming that consistency is no longer an issue under this new system.

Brice

BBeale wrote:Why would you ever have to prove it? If you're playing a casual game, walk away. If this is a GW sponsored tournament, the rules judges will provide the same ruling, assuming that consistency is no longer an issue under this new system.

Brice

My point is, if you bring a printout and I bring a printout, unless the judge e-mails and gets a response right away it's going to be their judgment call on which e-mail is real and which is not. Unless GW compiles these questions and gives them to every TO before the thing (which would be a good thing).

Even more realistically, I play Orks and you don't. I have a doctored e-mail and you have nothing. How can you dispute my printed proof?

Plus, if it's just one guy answering all the e-mails of course it's gong to be consistent, he's the only one answering our questions, but GW could turn around tomorrow and FAQ it the other way.

Sure, the e-mails that GW send out can be consistent, but there isn't anything stopping people from doctoring them to suit their needs. Like I said, the best we could hope for is that GW releases a monthly PDF of the most FAQ and marks it official, that would be awesome.

mattyboy22 wrote:My point is, if you bring a printout and I bring a printout, unless the judge e-mails and gets a response right away it's going to be their judgment call on which e-mail is real and which is not. Unless GW compiles these questions and gives them to every TO before the thing (which would be a good thing)

Just on a note, there were 3 minutes between me e-mailing them and getting my reply, so in theory the judge could e-mail and get a response basically right away.

Matty,

Or, we as a community can compile the answers to our questions. That serves to provide a check for consistency and against duplicity. This is a great tool if it works. And I would assume that if GW is serious about consistency TOs will get some sort of guidance on these sorts of hot-topic rules issues.

On a related note, I don't understand the position that these rulings are not binding till there's a FAQ. GW is providing us with tool to determine how the rules work. If someone publishes a ruling on this site (or anywhere else), anyone who reads it has notice of GW's position on the rule. To play contra to that ruling (assuming it's not a house rules situation) is cheating once you have notice. Simple.

Drunkspleen,

My reply took about as long as well.

Brice

Nurglitch wrote:Well there's the thing, there are no more rulesboys, and the replacement customer service seems to be consistent.

'Consistent' is not a synonym for 'correct'. For all we know, the answers are consistenly wrong.

that is easy for you to say. The new email system of answering leaves a paper trail. Anyone who would sleaze out and edit an answer is someone I would REFUSE to play.

G

BBeale wrote:At the end of the day we now have clear, unambiguous answers to issues that we formerly did not. How is that a bad thing?

What we have are clear, unambiguous answers from someone who's job description appears to be 'Customer Service Specialist' rather than 'GW Games Developer' or 'Offical Rules Adjudicator'...

Not a bad thing. Just a useless thing.

Insaniak, send them an e-mail. If you get a different set of answers, then you have something to gripe/be mistrustful about.

I'm not griping about it. Nor am I mistrustful of it. Just pointing out why I think it's flawed.

I just don't see it as being in any way useful for anything other than casual games... which are the games that don't actually need the service in the first place. Go to a tournament and show your opponent a printed email to prove yourself correct on a rules issue and see how far it gets you.

As an aside, WotC has a system on their forums where games have a nominated rules person who has a proven level of knowledge of the rules, and is considered trustworthy enough to give accurate answers to rules questions. And even then, if his answers cover an ambiguous issue, even if he's checked the ruling with the guy who writes the rules, they aren't considered official until they're included in an FAQ. Why? Simply because in a competitive environment, 'Some guy on the internet said...' just doesn't cut it. It's not a rule until it's in an official publication.

It doesn't matter what GW choose to call their Rulzboy, he's still going to be disregarded by those who want official answers that their opponent can't argue with or claim are just made up.

I'm sure we could all send them the same E-mail tomorrow and get the same responce 100 times. Doesn't change the fact that if you walk into a store tomorrow with a printed out E-mail that shows a differing point of view to the one held by the person you're playing, then that E-mail means nothing. To that person, it's just an E-mail. It holds no meaning.

As insaniak said, it's nice to have this 'service', but it is ultimateley useless. It's not official in any way that can be said to be binding. Until it's published, it doesn't mean anything.

BYE

Of course it means something. It is, after all, a response from GW resolving a rules issue. You can't stick your head in the sand and say it doesn't count. It's correct until GW says otherwise. It's certainly more "official" than any conclusion reached without the benefit of its input.

Brice

Except that it really doesn't. The write-in-rules-service has existed for a long time, this is simply a new and arguably better format. That doesn't change that their answers have been worthless in the past.

If this service does serve to expedite the FAQ process then it will certainly prove to have some worth, and over time people may begin to pay attention to the email sheets. Until then, however, it's simply an informed opinion.

No, an informed opinion is a conclusion that we reach on this site. This is something more than that. As far as any of us should be concerned, anyone refusing to play in accord with the rules as stated in one of these solicited responses is cheating.

Brice

Says you.

How is it not? You have a ruling from GW. There's a point where you're being contrary just to be contrary. . .

Brice

Actually, you have an email that may or not be a final ruling.

What we have is a piece of printer paper with some words on it that might or might not have come from John Spencer, who might or might not be operating in an official capacity that affects how we will have to use rules in 40k, casual games and tournament settings. Until they're compiled into a document with the GW stamp of approval that is easily referable and verifiable we don't actually have much of anything except somebody else's opinion.

Just because it comes from GW doesn't mean it's correct. Look at White Dwarf battle reports. By their own admission they don't really need to refer to the rules because everybody just knows "how it's meant to be played".

John Spencer's rulings are about as useful as Obama's presidential edicts; they might give you an official opinion, they might allow you to predict future trends, but until the President-elect is sworn in as President, they have no official weight.