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.

So I sent off an email yesterday to US Customer Service to test, and here's what came back:

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.

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?


Yes.


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

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.

wow.. lets just go round and round and round and round

didn't we JUST have this debate?
and before that have this debate?

yeesh

NaZ

NaZ wrote:wow.. lets just go round and round and round and round

didn't we JUST have this debate?
and before that have this debate?

yeesh

NaZ

Yes, if there is anything that I have learned then it would be that there just is no answer that everyone will agree on. Unless they release an official FAQ then these arguments will continue. One judge will contradict another, one email will contradict another. In the end it doesn't matter who answers your question because someone will disagree. If you come across problems like this in game I would just say D6 it and move on. The dice are impartial and have no opinion either way so let them decide for you.

"This just in from our Breaking News Reporter Ryan Eli Dundant. Take it away, R.E. Dundant"

"Well, Jim I'm here to report that Olympia, our favorite poster this week, evidentally plays neither version of Space Marines, nor Orks and is multi-posting the same alleged email concerning the rules gray areas he hates the most using a subject line for said rule s/he hates in an effort to influence the FAQ and gaming community to unite behind his/her vision of the grim dark future where there is only war. More on this in our third installment 'The Lash Of Submission is a psychic shooting attack!' at 11 o'clock tonight. Back to you Jim.".

So why do we need an answer that everyone agrees on? How is agreement any way to deal with facts? Agreement is irrelevant to the truth of the matter, and the people getting it wrong are either stupid or cheating.

If the new customer service is consistent in their answers to rules questions (and right now everyone should be testing whether they are rather than dismissing the new service out of prejudice against the previous one), then they speak with authority and dissent is so much hot air.

Nurglitch wrote:So why do we need an answer that everyone agrees on? How is agreement any way to deal with facts? Agreement is irrelevant to the truth of the matter, and the people getting it wrong are either stupid or cheating.

If the new customer service is consistent in their answers to rules questions (and right now everyone should be testing whether they are rather than dismissing the new service out of prejudice against the previous one), then they speak with authority and dissent is so much hot air.

Maybe agree wasn't exactly the best choice of words here, but basically it boils down to this:

Someone is right and someone is wrong. Assuming that the new customer service is %100 percent consistent there will still be people that do not agree with that ruling until an official FAQ is released as they will state that the customer service is not official ruling. Personally, if customer service said that calgar rode around on a land speeder with AV 14 all around firing 10 melta gun shots I would go with it cause in my opinion they do represent GW ruling to an extent.

Bottom line: Yes, we should agree with what customer service says..assuming they are consistent. Will everyone listen? Probably not.

Axyl:

But the intransigents will not agree on a conclusion until an FAQ is released because the previous rules query service was inconsistent, thereby requiring an official FAQ.

Whether people will listen to the customer service will be whether they prove themselves to be consistent, which is something we can test.

I think I'll start a thread about it in YMDC.

Well, I tried it, and I didn't get the answer I wanted.

from US Customer Service <Custserv@games-workshop.com>
to Boss Ardnutz
date Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 9:45 AM
subject RE: Rules question - 40K - Orks
mailed-by games-workshop.com

hide details 9:45 AM (0 minutes ago)


Reply



Hello,

The Deff Roller only works in Tank Shock. Not in Ramming.



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: Boss Ardnutz [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 5:41 PM
To: US Customer Service
Subject: Rules question - 40K - Orks
- Show quoted text -

Is anybody BUT John Spencer busy answering these things? Its easy to get the same answer when you ask the same guy.

Breton wrote:A Special kind of Tank Shock.

It doesn't matter what kind of Tank Shock it is. As long as it affects a Tank Shock then it affects all kinds of Tank Shocks. Only if the rules specifically state that it affects Tank Shock and not Ramming would you have an argument. The rules make no distinction as to what type of Tank Shock it covers.

MagickalMemories wrote:

So, by following this line of reasoning (it shouldn't work because it LOOKS flimsy), then you would have no problem with me using one on you if I modeled it to look as secure as... Oh... say... a RAM on the front of an Ork Trukk?
I wonder how THOSE are attached.

Oh. Wait... a couple of steel beams.
MUCH more secure than the Deff Rolla.


Eric

well seeing as a RAM is welded, screwed, bolted, tied and any other way fastened to the trukk yea i can see the ram being used to ram things. but a rolla, is a massive barrel, with two arms bolted to the sides, and then bolted to the wagon. i really dont see how on earth you think a rolla would be every bit as hard and secured to the wagon as a friggin ram.

Ghaz wrote:

Breton wrote:A Special kind of Tank Shock.

It doesn't matter what kind of Tank Shock it is. As long as it affects a Tank Shock then it affects all kinds of Tank Shocks. Only if the rules specifically state that it affects Tank Shock and not Ramming would you have an argument. The rules make no distinction as to what type of Tank Shock it covers.

You are wrong ghaz, not in your interpretations of the rules, but the claim that an argument cannot be made to the contrary of your views, one can be made, and has been made time and time again.

Frankly this won't be solved without GW intervention.

And the only way you can validate your arguement is to ignore what's printed in black and white in the rulebook. Perhaps you should look in the mirror before claiming an argument can't be made to the contrary of your view to make sure you don't look like such a hypocrite.

yeah,
Ghaz you need to man up to that fact your cheat rolla is being taken away... don't cry...

Panic..

hey Ghaz I just looked in the mirror. Is there anything else I should do too?

G

I too must laugh at this thread. How many times do we need to debate the same thing to no avail.

I personally believe it does work for the same reasons as Ghaz has stated. However, it will need to be ruled on a tourney by tourney basis for tourney gamers. For casual gamers, I dont see the argument against it. All I see is an argument for arguments sake. The kind that tourney gamers get accused of.

torgoch wrote:The Heat 2 GT FAQ which has apparently been through the Dev team specifies Deathrollers do not apply to Ramming, only to Tank Shock.

This is about as official as you are likely to get unless the Ork FAQ is updated soon.

The Heat 2 FAQ is no better than the Adepticon FAQ. Recently, it said that ork shoota boyz could not have a powerklaw on their nob. The real FAQ said they could.

Nurglitch wrote:So why do we need an answer that everyone agrees on? How is agreement any way to deal with facts? Agreement is irrelevant to the truth of the matter, and the people getting it wrong are either stupid or cheating.

If the new customer service is consistent in their answers to rules questions (and right now everyone should be testing whether they are rather than dismissing the new service out of prejudice against the previous one), then they speak with authority and dissent is so much hot air.

The only agreement that is needed is that between the people fielding armies.
The facts are that if the opponents can agree on a set of rules, then that is fine. If they can't, then find new opponents.
Tournaments will publish their own rules/FAQs/interpretations.

As to people who interpret the rules different to oneself being "stupid or cheating", that is just sour grapes.

d6 S10 tank shock is simply too powerful

G

Blackspike wrote:As to people who interpret the rules different to oneself being "stupid or cheating", that is just sour grapes.

Given that my whole post was about the fact that agreement is irrelevant to truth, it might be the case that I'm not calling people that disagree with me "stupid or cheating", and in fact that I'm calling people that get the rules wrong are stupid or cheating.

Panic wrote:yeah,
Ghaz you need to man up to that fact your cheat rolla is being taken away... don't cry...

Panic..

And exactly how is 'my cheat rolla' being taken away since I don't play Orks? The only person trying to cheat their opponents here is you by trying to make up some lame excuse as to why a Tank Shock is not a Tank Shock. Perhaps you're the one who needs a handkercheif to wipe away your tears.

Green Blow Fly wrote:hey Ghaz I just looked in the mirror. Is there anything else I should do too?

G

I don't know. Are you claiming that people aren't allowed to make an argument counter to your viewpoint? It sure seems that Drunkspleen is saying that no one's allowed to make an argument counter to his views. For all I care, you can make all of the arguments you want, but that in no way means that I have to agree with them or find them to be valid and in no way means I'm not allowed to point out why his views are wrong.

Nurglitch wrote:... and in fact that I'm calling people that get the rules wrong are stupid or cheating.

Well, you shouldn't be so hard on yourself because in this case you have the rules wrong.

Ghaz wrote:Well, you shouldn't be so hard on yourself because in this case you have the rules wrong.

Train wreck. I divest myself from this conversation henceforth.

G

Nurglitch wrote:

Blackspike wrote:As to people who interpret the rules different to oneself being "stupid or cheating", that is just sour grapes.

Given that my whole post was about the fact that agreement is irrelevant to truth, it might be the case that I'm not calling people that disagree with me "stupid or cheating", and in fact that I'm calling people that get the rules wrong are stupid or cheating.

And you are now the Final Arbiter of Truth?

As I pointed out, the only thing that matters is agreement. Agreement between the two players stood either side of the table.

The whole point of this entire section of the forum is because the rules are either not clear, or not as people want to play them.

House-rules are encouraged are they not?
Do you call the people on this forum saying that they play with Drop Pods that can fire on the turn they land stupid, or cheats? The rules clearly state this is not the case.

If anyone would like to post a reply from GW explaining why John Spencer interprets the rules this way, I'd be very interested. Maybe even convinced.

No, of course I'm not the "Final Arbiter of Truth".

But I don't need to be in order to demonstrate that my opinion reflects the truth, or to check if the opinion of others reflects the truth. I'm just pointing out where the facts of the matter can be established, such as in any discussion about rules, agreement is irrelevant.

If we're talking about the rules, then we can know the truth about them, and dissenters from the facts of the matter are rightly labeled 'stupid', if it's because they don't understand how to check that some conclusion about the rules is true, and 'cheaters', if it's because they want the rules to give them an advantage.

You're certainly right about the relevance of agreement where playing a particular game is the matter at issue. After all, this forum isn't just about rules, it's about what people do with them. But that agreement requires that players know what rules they are playing by, and what rules they are deviating from. It requires that both players start from the same set of premises. Agreement is only relevant after the facts about the rules have been determined.

Personally I don't see a point to talking to people I don't play with about how they want to play, I'm only here to discuss what the rules actually say, because that's the only useful contribution I can make in a semi-public forum such as this one.

If people want to discuss how they plan to play, rather than what the rules say, I'm happy to leave them to it.

But since what the rules say is relevant to how people agree to play their games, particularly if that agreement is implicit, then the truth is the only thing that is relevant to us here in a semi-public forum about how we are to play our semi-private games. I'm not going to tell people how to play their games, or make decrees about truth, but I am going to say: "Hey, here's what the rules say, and how they say it so that you can check if I'm telling you the truth."

In fact, I think it's much more important to discuss the facts of the rules than to discuss what we plan to do in the advent of the rules being one way or another, since the latter is merely a subjective matter. The former is the only objective matter well suited for a discussion forum rather than a gaming table, and the latter is subjective matter relevant only to the people gathered around a particular gaming table.

Given the nature of rules, if the players are interested in what the rules actually say, and the rules are considered to be unclear, then that lack of clarity is in the eye of the beholder(s). Since clarity is subjective, and rules are objective, clarity is irrelevant.

I would call people on this forum saying that the play with Drop Pods that can fire on the turn they land, and do so without the prior knowledge and agreement of their opposition, both 'stupid' and 'cheaters'. I might say similarly unpleasant things about people that confuse the rules with game play. If the players involved in the game are aware that the rules don't sanction Drop Pods firing on the turn in which they land, and decide to play it that way anyways, they are neither 'stupid' nor 'cheating'.

Dissenting from the facts about the rules is stupid and possibly cheating, dissenting from the irrelevant opinions of non-players in order to play a game the way all players want is good sportsmanship. Notice the difference between disagreements about the rules, which are a factual matter, and disagreements about play, which is a subjective matter?

Given all that, I would hope it would be obvious that I'm disappointed by the lack of explanation that Mr. Spencer had given me with his answers. In the reply that I received, containing three answers to three questions, only two answers appear to be correct, and the only explanation he offered for one of the answers was incorrect according to my fact-checking procedure.

Ghaz wrote:I don't know. Are you claiming that people aren't allowed to make an argument counter to your viewpoint? It sure seems that Drunkspleen is saying that no one's allowed to make an argument counter to his views. For all I care, you can make all of the arguments you want, but that in no way means that I have to agree with them or find them to be valid and in no way means I'm not allowed to point out why his views are wrong.

No you imbecile, I'm saying that your claim that "Only if the rules specifically state that it affects Tank Shock and not Ramming would you have an argument. The rules make no distinction as to what type of Tank Shock it covers." Is a load of crap because people have consistently made arguments without the need for that, and they aren't any less valid than the arguments in support. I don't claim that you can't make an argument counter to my views, you just decided to shove words down my throat.

I'm saying both sides raise valid points, and suddenly you accuse me of being a hypocrite... If this is the state of your english comprehension, maybe we should just be dismissing any statements you make about RAW.

Ghaz wrote:For all I care, you can make all of the arguments you want, but that in no way means that I have to agree with them or find them to be valid and in no way means I'm not allowed to point out why his views are wrong.

I'd like to point out that if you agree that the premises of an argument are true, and that the argument is valid, that if you are going to act like a reasonable person then you must agree with the argument and its conclusions.

Redbeard wrote:

The Heat 2 FAQ is no better than the Adepticon FAQ. Recently, it said that ork shoota boyz could not have a powerklaw on their nob. The real FAQ said they could.

I agree, in that the GT FAQ has a history of producing 'interesting' answers which have not subsequently been supported by the official FAQs. In this case it seems fairly clear to me the Deathroller can ram and I would imagine that any subsequent official FAQ will agree (rules interpretations aside, they've got to shift that dreadful battlewagon model).

However, interpretation wasn't the issue, rather some kind of official confirmation of how it worked, so I'm not sure I agree in the 'no better' part. The Heat 2 FAQ is a not an official FAQ, but this year it at least has 'been through' the Dev team in some manner. How robust their process of review was, I don't know, and, before you ask, I am 99.9% certain the process the Adepticon FAQ goes through is significantly more robust. As far as an 'official' answer goes, however, this is as unfortunately as close as you are likely to get at the moment.

having looked at the Heat 2 FAQ I think the Adepticon FAQ is much better. There are some glaring errors in the Heat 2 FAQ that don't match recent FAQs from the company.

G

Ghaz wrote:

KingCracker wrote:
OK seriously people that deff rolla thing SHOULD NOT BE USED TO RAM VEHICLES! it would snap right off the first time the battle wagon used it in that manner. its just a roller slapped to the front of a tank via steel beams. it would crumble in an instant. i dont CARE what you think the rulebook says on it. and you people that defend the fact that its supposed to be a rules as written so ram everything are cheaters IMO.

No, cheaters are people who try to get their way by using flimsy fluff arguments when the rules clearly say otherwise. The game is played according to the rules, not the fluff.

QFT