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.

I will not post the following statements if I am not clear and have no supporting statements.

I do not wish to incur the wrath of the mods. I am still a small fish, so I still want to stay alive in these forums and contribute as member in relations to codex rules.

I have made two separate calls to Games Workshop UK. That is my support for the following statements.

1) Dread Knight lose no status in the following status: MC and JI
2) Dread Knight follows the rules of both MC and JI

That is the short of it.

Employee quoted saying,
1)"The teleporter makes the Dread Knight moves like the Interceptor Squad."
2)"Dread Knight does not change it's status."

That confirms the Dread Knight still retains its' MC status and moves as Jump Infantry.

If in doubt, call Games Workshop. I live in Malaysia, so if there is any rule conflicts or any issues, we have to wait until 5pm Malaysian time to call GW to confirm anything. It will be 10am UK time by that time we call them.

As I posted in the other thread - GW emails / phonecalls are not a valid source of rules for this forum.

Mainly through experience - they are often wrong (glaringly so, often in contradiction of the GW FAQs), are often inconsistent (as in, ring them twice and get two different answers) and their answers are not verifiable (they are not published anywehere)

Thanks for taking the time to do so, however as far as being able to nail a rule, they just dont count for much.

You may argue all you wish, but I talk to a person. Regardless what you just said, I asked someone. Have you ask from a company representative?

I did not base on assumptions. I confirm with a source from the company. So for the time being, I will go by what the company says it should be, not what other people says. So until the FAQ comes out, I will be following the statement a GW employee gave to me an hour ago on the phone, TWICE.

Dread Knight follows the rules of both MC and JI if it takes the personal teleporter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I say negative on nosteratu1001 comment.

I have called GW a third time. Not to prove a point, but to reconfirm the validation of the Dread Knight status.

Dread Knight attains the MC status. It also gain JI status when taking the personal teleporter. There is nothing saying it loses any MC status.

To say GW emails and phonecalls are not a valid source is wrong. Where else do international players get confirmation on rules if they do not do so.

"A source" from the company - what was their position on the dev team? Codex author? Editor? Play tester? Person boxing up shipments ready for dispatch?

As usual: what you choose to play a rule as is up to you. I am not arguing that.

What I am arguing is that this "confirmation" is only valid for you, and noone else. NOBODY on here can validate your confirmation. Noone.

GW staff offer guidance, Wallacethe5, but only that. People can ring on a different day or speak to a different person and get an alternative answer.

The only official valid source is either a Codex or an official GW FAQ.

Anything else is just a suggestion or guidance.

The rules are in the rulebooks.

GW emails and calls are a 'source of information' but they are not valid for the purposes of this forum - as stated by the moderators of this website under the 'Tenets of YMDC' (see the sticky). Very few of GW's employees have any hand in designing the rules, and whilst the answer they give you will usually be the most sensible way to play it out you're basically asking them to create a house-ruling for you. You're supposed to do this on your own initiative when the rules are unclear, but there's no harm in getting a second opinion.

Nos has posted his opinions on this situation and actually agrees with you and the GW employee, but for the exact reasons he has stated the source is simply not valid.

Irregardless, I called thrice to confirm. That should as solid as it is.

So for now, until a FAQ is out, the Dread Knight retains the MC and JI status should be the standard.

If the FAQ is the same or similiar as I said in the statement, than GW calls are valid sources for the time being until a FAQ is out.

Human error is inevitable, but WE MUST NEVER DISREGARD A SOURCE. IF it is the only SOURCE we could get, disregarding it would be a foolish thing to do.




Than I agree with Arctik and Miriclefish.

This forum is also a source. I actually personally know GW employees who agree that both interpretations are reasonable. I still can't validate this any more than you can by saying so.

Walace - I am not disregarding it; I have assessed the source as "non verifiable" and so it is, logically, less trustworthy than verifiable sources.

As such, I choose (and so does this forum, according to the tenets) to not use this source as the basis of my rules decisions.

For example: I can "call" GW now, find out the exact opposite, and post it here - contradicting your statements. Now who do you trust?

I don't understand the unwillingness to tentatively accept the guidance of GW for how this rule should work until the FAQ comes out... just like Wallacethe5 said.

Calling GW and asking a rules question, and getting the same answer 3 times is about as good as you are going to get on this until a FAQ comes out. That ruling means more to me than what anyone ELSE would say until a FAQ does come out, let's put it that way.

Yeah sure, the source isn't the "Official FAQ" written in Mike Ward's blood and entombed for all time. But it's the best "official guidance" so far that's out there to my knowledge, so why not follow it until either an official ruling is made, or some contrary evidence by an equally reliable source comes up?

Nosferatu, you say for example you could call GW and find out the exact opposite... but have you? If 100 GW employees told you the same thing it still wouldn't be "valid"?

Wallace-

First, welcome to Dakka Dakka!

I appreciate the obvious level of commitment and interest you have in the game and the hobby, displayed by your willingness to repeatedly call GWUK from Malaysia. That's pretty impressive!

That being said, the above posters are correct that phone calls to Games Workshop, or emails to and from them, are not considered authoritative sources for rules answers. This is mentioned in the Tenets of You Make Da Call thread, at the top of this forum:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

The reasons for this are twofold.

A) These answers are unverifiable. The other people with whom you are discussing the rules here on the forum cannot confirm the answer you got by referencing the exact same source. Your phone call or email isn't something which can really be documented or proven or easily referenced, especially if the person you're talking to is trying to convince OTHER people at his local gaming store or club. "Some guy online said he talked to GW and they said this" isn't really convincing if I am talking to my opponent at my local game store.

B) Answers from GW customer service are notoriously unreliable and inconsistent. On many occasions, you can call and get totally different answers from different people. Sometimes you can call and ask a question which has a clear answer in the rulebook, and the person answering the phone gets it wrong. It's been bad enough to be kind of a recurring joke over the last 11+ years that I've been on this forum.

Yes but for those who remember the days of rulz boys even they contradicted what gw employees were putting out. GW employees are nothing special in fact a majority of the employees i know are eithier A. high school students or B. college drop outs. no offense to any out there those are just a majority of the ones i have met. Now bringing that into consideration to do you really think they will have much if any impact on the writing of codex's and rules? No. Bottom line is until a official written publication has been released the ruling can go etihier way. sorry but thats the way this game works sometimes.

One major problem with relying on someone saying they called 3 times is that there is no proof other than the word of the person who says they called. I could say that i called 4 times and they all agreed that the unit looses MC and then its just my word versus yours with no proof either way. I could also slightly twist the way I ask to influence the answer to be the one I want in many situations.

The people who answer the phones and respond to emails do not always give consistent replies.

Murrdox - that doubt you express is the exact point

You have no way of verifying my claim, and as such it is inherently less valid as a source.

I'd just like to chime in and give some of my experience with calling GW for rules validation or questions. When I got back into the hobby in 2006, I started playing with three other players, all either new or returning after long absences. One of the guys in our little group would call GW constantly. He'd often forget what they told him the last time he called and call again on the same issue. He was playing necrons and we all had issues trying to figure out his codex at the time. Anyway, I usually did remember what the phone-in ruling was from the previous time we played and the answers we get were inconsistant. Sometimes I know he was talking to the same guy and got a different response.
You are free to play the dreadknight as you choose and within your group you are free to use calls to GW as a source to solve rules disputes. You won't convince many posters here though that a call to GW serves as a rule validation or clarification.

i called GW today myself to verify this... and iw as told that JI replaces MC, and that it counts as JI in all respects. i called back and got the same answer from someone diffrent.

have my word on that.


- but without proof how do yo know im not just pulling the above out of my arse? the point has been made above to death, and obviously im not going to call myself a liar, but....

I would say that it works like a daemon prince with wings. It's a monsterous creature that can move as a jump infatry. X inches, ignoring all intervening terrain.

wallacethe5 wrote:2)"Dread Knight does not change it's status."

Regardless of which side you are on, this part would be incorrect in any case.

Its status either changes to JI or to JI and MC.

Unless I mis-read something again.

DarthSpader wrote:i called GW today myself to verify this... and iw as told that JI replaces MC, and that it counts as JI in all respects. i called back and got the same answer from someone diffrent.

have my word on that.


- but without proof how do yo know im not just pulling the above out of my arse? the point has been made above to death, and obviously im not going to call myself a liar, but....

Well, you think they give people a direct line to their design team? You got ahold of one of the boxpackers who happened to have a codex nearby.

Small, Far Away wrote:I would say that it works like a daemon prince with wings.

I would say it reads as a 5e Hive Tyrant with wings using the 4e Tyranid codex --which happened for months.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Murrdox - that doubt you express is the exact point

You have no way of verifying my claim, and as such it is inherently less valid as a source.

Yes, I suppose if you just don't trust anyone on the internet, you get that. I can go ahead and post that I just called GW and they confirmed to me that Necrons won't be released until 2012 and no one can verify it.

For me and my gaming group, if there was a rule dispute like this one for something that pertained to MY army and I told them "Well, someone posted on a Warhammer message board that GW said the rule was supposed to work THIS way..." that would probably be enough for us to just say "Okay, let's just assume it works that way then until a FAQ comes out".

If you're playing in a tournament... well tell that to the Tournament runner, and see what they decide. The House can take such a claim for whatever they think it's worth.

And furthermore, even if verified, that still would not be convincing enough evidence for most people. Hell, there were people arguing against Allies when the *hunters codexes went to PDF even though GW had a page on their website that outright TOLD you that the physical copies were valid. I'm not even sure people would accept it coming from Ward himself descending from heaven riding a solid gold Blood Angel.

What, you called a phone rep and got rules advice. You do know they have no rule training and no pull in the company. They are there to keep the massives off the poeple of matters backs, nothing else. The fact you get a different answer each time you call should tell you this. Even the FAQ prove they have no clue.

daedalus wrote:

DarthSpader wrote:i called GW today myself to verify this... and iw as told that JI replaces MC, and that it counts as JI in all respects. i called back and got the same answer from someone diffrent.

have my word on that.


- but without proof how do yo know im not just pulling the above out of my arse? the point has been made above to death, and obviously im not going to call myself a liar, but....

Well, you think they give people a direct line to their design team? You got ahold of one of the boxpackers who happened to have a codex nearby.

How do you know he had a codex nearby, and didn't just answer off the top of his head?

That being said, the above is (IMO) a bit unjust and is more negative than is really called for. For a while John Shaffer was going an excellent job fielding rules calls for GW US; handling all the emails himself with consistent reference to the rulebooks and FAQs, and actually distributing the FAQs to the phone customer service guys. There was a good year, or maybe even two years, when they were really doing a darn good job on the phones.

But AFAIK that is not presently the case. And even when it WAS the case, the same issues of verifiability and documentation prevented it from being a good resource for purposes of YMDC and for local games at home or a store.

lol @ calling gw for a source of "hard" rules

Mannahnin wrote:
How do you know he had a codex nearby, and didn't just answer off the top of his head?

That being said, the above is (IMO) a bit unjust and is more negative than is really called for. For a while John Shaffer was going an excellent job fielding rules calls for GW US; handling all the emails himself with consistent reference to the rulebooks and FAQs, and actually distributing the FAQs to the phone customer service guys. There was a good year, or maybe even two years, when they were really doing a darn good job on the phones.

But AFAIK that is not presently the case. And even when it WAS the case, the same issues of verifiability and documentation prevented it from being a good resource for purposes of YMDC and for local games at home or a store.

The bits and pieces I see from the blog entries and WD battle reports just don't really instill much confidence in me that many of the employees actually know the game. You're right though. Probably wasn't fair of me.

Murrdox wrote:For me and my gaming group, if there was a rule dispute like this one for something that pertained to MY army and I told them "Well, someone posted on a Warhammer message board that GW said the rule was supposed to work THIS way..." that would probably be enough for us to just say "Okay, let's just assume it works that way then until a FAQ comes out".

You would be much better off just deciding for yourselves how to houserule it rather than following a forum user's report of an unknown person's opinion.

Scott-S6 wrote:

Murrdox wrote:For me and my gaming group, if there was a rule dispute like this one for something that pertained to MY army and I told them "Well, someone posted on a Warhammer message board that GW said the rule was supposed to work THIS way..." that would probably be enough for us to just say "Okay, let's just assume it works that way then until a FAQ comes out".

You would be much better off just deciding for yourselves how to houserule it rather than following a forum user's report of an unknown person's opinion.

Yeah... I'm talking about a situation where the interpretation of the rule was so much in question that it's time to roll a die and choose which way to interpret it randomly.

Most of the time a combination of reading the rules and having an intelligent conversation about them will resolve a rule issue in the correct direction.

For my gaming group, we have a partnered attourney that we game with whom we like to run poorly worded rules by every once in awhile. A standing bit of montra is (and I paraphrase) when competing rules interpretations both have merit, figure out a way to best both until GW guides us elsewhere. More times than not, this works out into something all parties can live with, and tends to be close to where GW FAQs lands anyway.

In this case, Monstrous Creature and gains Jump Infantry.

No, it doesn't fit in the StormRaven because its still monstrous, and though Stormravens carry Jump Infantry, they do not carry Monstrous Jump Infantry. The Dreadnight does move like Interceptors.

Obviously not an official interpretation, but more importantly, it just makes sense and all in our group could agree on it. Sometimes, its worth mentioning an item to the local game master or club and discuss such things. I suspect more times than not, an easy solution can be agreed upon if the group lets some reason and cooler heads prevail. Afterall, this is a game... <shrug> keep it fun.

Cheers,

Tac

How come nobody has mentioned a Daemon prince with wings? A daemon prince with wings is both JI and MC, is not one or the other, is simply both! Why can't a dread knight be both as well? Same as your winged tyranid MC's! You can be and are both!