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.

Green Blow Fly, the only way nurglitch is "setting John Spencer up to fail" is if John Spencer is not good at his job and gives inconsistant answers to the same questions, WHICH HE SHOULDN'T BE DOING.

that's like saying, I'm setting the burger maker at my local Mcdonalds up to fail by ordering a big mac without pickles, cause when he puts pickles on it by accident, he will get in trouble.

Of course he will, because he didn't do his job properly, but my order was well within the limitations of his job requirements.

there is a difference since this is a public forum.

G

He's a rock star too!

http://thejonspencerbluesexplosion.com/2008/

Funny to see someone defend rulezboys if they/he would screw up, do you really think people should get protected if they do something wrong? Or maybe they need to be accountable for their acctions like any normal human is(in court and socially), on this public forum? Why are you defending that?

Think this idea is sweet and quite informative about how far you should trust rulezboys.

I've said my piece and will leave it at that mate.

G

Nurglitch wrote: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.

Actually, John said he didn't post those other "answers". I was smart enough to send both sets of questions/answers to him last week and ask what was up. Seems to me that a few individuals just might be 'editing' emails and not bothering to mention that they are doing so.....................
As for the poll, IMO there needs to be a third choice. Not official but a strong indicator.

I sent the following, will update once I have a reply.
1) Are your answers to be considered official? By official, I mean should that be the end of the discussion on this topic, as good as a GW published FAQ?
2) If #1 is yes (awesome), are you keeping track of the questions and answers for GT rulings and future FAQs?
3) And 2 actual 40k rules question: Does Ghazkrull Thraka's Waagh now provide a 6 on the "run" roll for that unit?
4) A unit of two multiwound models, equipped differently, one is wounded, the other is not. The unit is hit with an instant death causing weapon, can the wound be assigned to the wounded model?

To answer your #2, here's GoGo's response on the GW US Community forum:

"The askgamesworkshop.com is being handled by our customer service team. When a question comes in, they grab a rulebook and discuss it as a group, come to a consensus and submit the answer.

If the answer pertains to a specific event (GT, 'Ard Boyz, etc) they've been booting that over to the team responsible for that event).

For the foreseeable future, GTs will always only strictly follow the published rulebooks, FAQs and errata - with any odd things that pop-up on the day being handled by the rules judges and being applicable for that event.

There is a review underway to see if it is feasible to better integrate the global studio into this process, and/or to try and ensure that all answers sent back from askgamesworkshop.com are consistent and clear."

John Spencer would like to ask that this test end. There is only 1 person answering rules questions, and getting swamped with this test is taking up time he could be using to help out other players.

Thank you for your consideration.

This was really funny. I don't think it counts as an experiment if the guy is "in" on it.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

@Green Blow Fly - WTF are you talking about man? this was not to check the performance of any one man at GW or to get anyone in trouble. This was to put the system to the test and see if it performed any better than the call in responses. we all know that if you call you would get an answer based solely upon who answered the phone and their interpretation of a rule. 10 people asking the same question usually resulted in 5 different results. this test was to see if the same thing would happen through the email system. it was intended to reflect on any one person.

If you let the subject(the email system) know they are being tested then the results get skewed.

and if any persons performance review was affected based upon something like this then there are more issues at GW then we know about.

@KeithGatchalian - is it a fact or opinion that there is only one person answering these questions?

I find it amusing that there is actually someone here arguing against customer advocacy and consumer protection. Since when is it wrong or evil to check the performance and consistency of a service offered by a corporation?

Maybe we should ask that Consumer Reports and investigative journalists cut it out. The big meanies!

usernamesareannoying wrote:@Green Blow Fly - WTF are you talking about man? this was not to check the performance of any one man at GW or to get anyone in trouble. This was to put the system to the test and see if it performed any better than the call in responses. we all know that if you call you would get an answer based solely upon who answered the phone and their interpretation of a rule. 10 people asking the same question usually resulted in 5 different results. this test was to see if the same thing would happen through the email system. it was intended to reflect on any one person.

If you let the subject(the email system) know they are being tested then the results get skewed.

and if any persons performance review was affected based upon something like this then there are more issues at GW then we know about.

@KeithGatchalian - is it a fact or opinion that there is only one person answering these questions?

You know you can take the butcher's word for it or you can stick your....nevermind.

There is at this time 1 person answering rules questions in Customer Service. They are planning on hiring someone else for the department...if that person will also answer rules questions at this time I do not know.

KeithGatchalian wrote:You know you can take the butcher's word for it or you can stick your....nevermind.

I love that...
i'll take your word for it...

Answers to my questions:
Good morning John, my questions today are:

1) Are your answers to be considered official? By official, I mean should that be the end of the discussion on this topic, as good as a GW published FAQ?

Our answers are our veteran hobby experience. All our answers are based of what we can find in the rulebook, and in cases where the rulebooks are totally unclear we will note that. We are not currently ‘in the loop’ for FAQs.

2) If #1 is yes (awesome), are you keeping track of the questions and answers for GT rulings and future FAQs?

Actually we plan on trying to work with the GT crew and come out with a GT FAQ starting next year.

3) And 2 actual 40k rules question: Does Ghazkrull Thraka's Waagh now provide a 6 on the "run" roll for that unit?

Yes, that is the intent of the rule.

4) A unit of two multiwound models, equipped differently, one is wounded, the other is not. The unit is hit with an instant death causing weapon, can the wound be assigned to the wounded model?

Yes.


So, the answer-line does not have the ear of the developers, but may be in on the GT FAQs next year - which would be cool. They are not currently integrated into the GTs, so don't expect these rulings at Ard-boyz or Baltimore. As for your personal local games, why not use these rulings to settle disputes?

yeah,
some people will email John before they read all this thread, and thus before they read the request to stop emailing him.
this thread should probabily be deleted, or the first post editted, to make clear not to email John with regards to this experiment... as cool as it is... I was about to email....

PAnic..>

Well, that sums it up pretty well. They're not official, but soon they hopefully will be.

I hope once they become official they are integrated with the FAQs and Design Studio input and get written down in a big book of consistent answers.

The slight flaw in this thread is that anyone can mark, 'no' without any evidence to back them up, as has already happened.

Six months down the line, will the impression left behind be "It doesn't work, things were answered inconsistently." even though the ones marked 'no' were done as a lark (or marked intentionally to be a jerk), even though everything so far has been answered consistently.

This, perhaps, is part of the point Green Blow Fly is making.

While we may have taken up a lot of John Spencer's time (sorry John). I think it was a worthwhile experiment. Given the poor reputation the rulesboyz had, I was worth establishing the consistency of his answers.

I emailed him some other questions too, and he answered them all clearly, and quickly. He even indicated which questions are likely to be FAQed in the future.

I think that the service is a really good one.

Maybe it spells the end of YMDC!

Got my response back and I asked him to clarify.

No, it doesn’t work. The Deff Rolla does’t say it works with a Ramming attack, so it doesn’t. Hopefully this will be clarified in a FAQ, as it is obviously a much asked question.

so its not an automated drone.

Speaking of testing Mr. Spencer and the new email rules query service, here's a discouraging reply I received when I asked whether the Gate of Infinity could be used on a unit that was locked in combat:

John Spencer, Correspondence wrote:Yes, Gate of Infinity does not list any reason why it could not be used while locked in assault so it can.

While I disagree with John, this disagreement isn't what discourages me about the new email rules query service. What discourages me is that if Mr. Spencer's answers are official, he has just sanctioned the worst and most reprehensible argument that can be made in this forum: "It doesn't say that I can't do x."

From: askyourquestion@Games-Workshop.com
Subject: RE: Rules query
Date: 11 November 2008 9:02:30 AM
To:

Hello,

Answers to your questions are below, in blue.



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



Hi, I have a few rule questions that were not so clear in the rulebooks.



1. Does the Ork Battlewagon use the Deff Rolla in ramming? Ramming is

under the heading of tankshock, and it is stated in the fluff that

the rolla is used to drive over smaller vehicles.

No.



2. Does Marneus Calgar's rule "God of War" mean those who use it are

subject to No Retreat wounds? Because No Retreat works when something

is "Automatically passed", but for the normal ATSKNF rule, it is said

the marines can automatically fall back, but the word automatically

is not used for Marneus. Does this mean it is not subject to No Retreat?

If a unit chooses to pass a morale test for losing an assault, then it
is subject to No Retreat.



3. Can a Nob leading a Boyz Mob take a rokkit Launcha to go with his

power Klaw?

No, that is not a Nob option.

4. If all the grots in a grot mob die and leave the herder alone, can

the herder WARGH!?

No, the FAQ lists that Runtherds don't have the Waaagh! special rule.



5. If I take a Deff Dread as a troop choice in an Ork Army, does it

count as scoring?

No. Pre the Warhammer 40K rulebook, vehicles never count as scoring.



6. Can these rulings count in tournaments if a rules dispute comes

up, or are they friendlies only?

Most of the questions you asked are in the rulebook(and I've noted this)
and should be ruled the same way all the time. Any other questions
would be up to the tournament judge.



7. Are any of these questions likely to be FAQ'd?

The first two, possibly. The rest, probably not.



Thanks in advance.



Pika_power





This was what I got. I sent it a while back.

KeithGatchalian wrote:John Spencer would like to ask that this test end. There is only 1 person answering rules questions, and getting swamped with this test is taking up time he could be using to help out other players.

ROTFLMAO...


This whole thread is made of win.

Hey, let's organise, on this here public forum known to be frequented by GW employees and people who are on chatting terms with same, a top-secret (x2) mass mail-in to test whether or not the one guy answering rules questions ever answers the same question differently...

What's that Skip? He'll figure out what's going on? Surely not! I said it's top-secret, and it's not like he can, you know, read the interwebs or anything...

I'm going to go ahead and lock this thread as it seems to have run its course. Plus, asking one guy to answer the same questions over and over is just cruel.

PM me if you want the thread reopened, and we can discuss it.