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.

Fabius,

Whether or not it is a final ruling is irrelevant. It's a ruling and it's from GW.

Sourclams,

The fact that you insist on operating under the idea that 1) part of John Spencer's job isn't to consistently and unambiguously answer rules question on behalf of GW, and 2) everyone who produces an e-mail from him has falsified it in some way says a lot more about you and how you play this game than it does about this new system.

I would never cheat at a game of toy soldiers and I don't go around expecting other people to do so either--people that are pathetic enough to cheat at a game of 40k are the exception, not the rule. If someone is going to falsify an e-mail, why wouldn't they falsify a FAQ pdf? It would certainly be just as simple to do. "Yeah, this is the 'updated' version of the PDF." I don't carry my laptop to tournaments, so the same barriers to verification exist with FAQs that exist with rules queries under this system.

Whether you agree with a ruling or not is also irrelevant. GW writes the rules. When someone in an official capacity at GW says this is the rule, it is. Your opinion at that point is moot.

In all seriousness, if one of these hot-topic rules issues comes up and someone across the table says, "Hey, I had the same question, this is the response GW sent me regarding it", would you play by the ruling or not (assuming you didn't agree with it). I certainly think you should, and I have pretty strong feelings about anyone who wouldn't.

Brice

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

Brice

Because I've got a ruling from that Red Shirt over there that says the opposite, another Red Shirt over here says yet a third thing, and the Red Shirt who's having his day off today didn't agree with anyone else either. That's why the FAQ is what counts. Its the trump card. Its the final be-all-end-all of rulings. That's what we have faith in, that's what we all have access to no matter when we ask, or who we ask. If someone cares enough to hack the GW website and replace the FAQ... more power to them. At that point they deserve to have their week in the sun, so to speak, and have the ruling go their way. It'll help them make it through their jail time.

As for assuming everyone out there would fake an email... No I don't, and I don't think anyone else has either. What they're saying is that with flip-flops between sub-official rulings and the FAQ release, (and lets face it, most stores have at least one) the guys who would fake an email this isn't good enough for them.

Rulesboyz should be used as a way to settle disputes when both sides are being truculent. Their accuracy is less important than getting on with your bloody game.

Do we have anything *official* from GW that states that Spencers answers are meant to be taken as official rulings?
Saying 'you can email questions here' isn't enough; because they also say we can ask questions an the local store.
The Redshirt is *also* a GW employee, and part of their job is to answer rules questions. And I don't think I have ever spent more than an hour in a store without having to correct a Redshirt on a rules issue. (not a complaint, I am just more of a geek I guess)



And there is an issue of inherrent fairness. The reason rules are valid, is because everyone has access to them and thus can operate from the same level.
You can buy the books, you can download the FAQ. But I have no idea what questions you are asking Spencer. This inherrent 'secrecy' is what makes them near useless. We show up, and I have used the rules made publically available to create my army. You show up with the public rules, and your *private correspondence* that invalidates some of my army choices.
We are now playing two separate games.

If GW intended(or cared) to make these ruling 'official', they would announce it as such, and could *easiliy* give Spencer a place on the website for a FAQ column.

WoTC did such a thing with Star Wars RPG; and it worked fine. But to try and use private correspondence to change the rules for an entire game, isn't right.

And that assumes the answers can be considered reliable.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Rulesboyz should be used as a way to settle disputes when both sides are being truculent. Their accuracy is less important than getting on with your bloody game.

And when the same question comes up in the next game? And the one after that? See where this goes? Making assumptions about the validity of others' interpretations can change a person's entire army list, forever, if those people consistently play at the same venue with the same group of friends like most of us do.

Deffrolla Battlewagons, for example, go from being very powerful to virtual suck depending on whether or not we decide to trust this individual's answer. GW employees are wrong *all the time*. This is the part that many people take exception to. Go look at WD battle reports, the email about "eldar can assault out of moving transports", and all the other inconsistencies. How is this guy any different than the White Dwarf chief editor? Or the customer service rep for a sales region? Or some other faceless guy on the phone? Just because GW says doesn't mean it's how it is, because GW says different things at different times.

Bigger picture.

Well, if the same question crops up, you have an answer, so why bother asking it? Just stick with the ruling given until an FAQ comes out.

This is my problem with over competitive players. Me? I tend to discuss likely problems with my opponent before the game, and if anything comes up during it, a quick discussion and it's cleared up.

it looks like a step in the right direction.

G

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.

Even if they could get an e-mail right away, it would still be their judgment call as it's their tournament and TO's always have final say in their tournaments.

mattyboy22 wrote:Unless GW compiles these questions and gives them to every TO before the thing (which would be a good thing)

If they could do that, why couldn't they take the less effort it would require to just post an FAQ rather than e-mail, either individually or mass, people running tournaments. That way everyone would benefit.

As it is, I see this as no more official than if I walked up to Phil Kelly or any other Design Team member and asked them a rules question: The answer(note: NOT a ruling) to my question is only available to me and not published for the public at large with an official stamp of approval. Until published in an FAQ somewhere, those answers are still only an opinion, even if highly valued or "more authoritative".

Platuan4th wrote:Even if they could get an e-mail right away, it would still be their judgment call as it's their tournament and TO's always have final say in their tournaments.

That, and the fact that Tournament packages usually list the Rulebooks, Codexes and FAQs as valid rules sources. I've never seen a tournement package that included emails from the Rulzboyz as a valid part of the ruleset.

if you are playing a certain way then someone convinces you to change that is powerful. The email answers could simply help people playing friendly games. It does not always have to come down to what is valid in a tournament environment. Step back and see the forest not a clump of trees. Really.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:The email answers could simply help people playing friendly games.

...who generally don't need the help.

The vast majority of rules issues in friendly games are resolved by either a quick discussion and agreement, or a dice roll (and if you play against regular opponents, followed by the addition of a house rule to cover the situation if it comes up again).

If your 'friendly' opponent isn't flexible enough to accept either of those two resolution methods, I can guarantee that they're also not going to be the sort of player who will accept your word that the email printout you're waving at them is genuine.

No matter the apparent consistency of GW's responses (or otherwise), my personal opinion is not to take the word of an unofficial internet forum as any indication of GW's answers.

You can always check the consistency yourself by emailing GW directly, and then judge the relevance of its corroboration (or lack thereof) with the opinions expressed here.

insaniak wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:The email answers could simply help people playing friendly games.

...who generally don't need the help.

The vast majority of rules issues in friendly games are resolved by either a quick discussion and agreement, or a dice roll (and if you play against regular opponents, followed by the addition of a house rule to cover the situation if it comes up again).

If your 'friendly' opponent isn't flexible enough to accept either of those two resolution methods, I can guarantee that they're also not going to be the sort of player who will accept your word that the email printout you're waving at them is genuine.

Not true at all. I have seen many times when players went the ruling of a neutral third party to get on with the game. Not everyone is a veteran or has face to face access with an arbitrary rules expert. When I first started playing it was in a small town and before the Internet was what is now. Many people play mostly for fun and the email answer is an easy way to check how a rule works. I'm not saying the email answer is always right but that it is an easy way for some people to clarify a question they have and reach an agreement. Simple really.

G

Nurglitch wrote:You can always check the consistency yourself by emailing GW directly, and then judge the relevance of its corroboration (or lack thereof) with the opinions expressed here.

I don't think anyone is wholeheartedly arguing the "consistency" issue anymore (if they are indeed tracking the emails in a database, then over time I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that they will be more consistent). The bigger issue for everyone seems to be the "authoritative" issue. And no matter how consistent their rulings are, without the authority to back them up, "consistency" is a moot point. So chiming in every ten posts or so about empirically verifying the consistency is kinda pointless.

why bother asking a question if you don't plan to use it settle a dispute involving the rules?

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Not true at all. I have seen many times when players went the ruling of a neutral third party to get on with the game.

...in which case they now have their ruling, and still have no reason to email GW about it...

you missed my point entirely.

G

dvdhwk:

Not at all, particularly since people against the authority of GW's new email customer service seem to be against its authority on the grounds that the previous service was inconsistent. Consistency, where answers to questions about rules are concerned, does hint at an authority.

BBeale wrote:Of course it means something.

All it means is that someone from GW's customer service team sent you an E-mail. What if you're playing a pickup game at a GW store, and the Red Shirt disagrees with that ruling. He's a GW employee disagreeing with another GW employee? Do we now roll to see who is more right?

These E-mails are pointless and meaningless until they are collated and published in an official format. Until such time as that happens, they are little more than a novelty.

BYE

Or until GW says they are official.

G

insaniak wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:The email answers could simply help people playing friendly games.

...who generally don't need the help.
...

yeah,
So GW seems to have put a more rebust email rules system in place.

Sometime a rule interpretation can split two reasonable people during a friendly game, It can seem like you/they are trying to get an advantage.. and your not, you just don't see eye to eye on the rules and most times both players will happyly dice off to resolve.

with the email you can get a ruling and next game both people don't think the other is trying to get a advantage... so it helps friendly gamers too.

Also We'll see lots of heads ups on rules issues before games via awarness in forums etc... 'oh did you see how they ruled on that...'

But what I see now are the people who were arguing on the losing side of the email ruling, denounce the email rulings to keep their advantages... and that's just sad...

Green Blow Fly wrote:Or until GW says they are official.

G

Exactly... which I think will be real good...

Panic...

Panic wrote:But what I see now are the people who were arguing on the losing side of the email ruling, denounce the email rulings to keep their advantages... and that's just sad...

No. What's sad is people who believe that this is the end all be all when it comes to answering a rules question. It's not. It's no better than rolling a D6. So what if the ruling sided with you this time. There's no guarantee that it's official or if it's correct and that makes it worthless.

Nurglitch wrote:dvdhwk:

Not at all, particularly since people against the authority of GW's new email customer service seem to be against its authority on the grounds that the previous service was inconsistent. Consistency, where answers to questions about rules are concerned, does hint at an authority.

No, the crux of most people's argument against the authority is that GW has not said that email responses are official unlike rulebooks, codexes, FAQ's, which they say are official.

Additionally consistency and authoritativeness are independent factors. Being more consistent doesn't lend itself to being more authoritative by definition. Nor does being more authoritative lend itself to being more consistent by definition. Look at a number of authoritative FAQ's (esp. regarding Space Marines and various chapters). There are inconsistencies, yet the FAQ's are nonetheless authoritative. Granted being both authoritative AND consistent is important and is what we're all looking for. But their not necessarily linked.

If anything, you can link consistency to reliability and predictability. Many people are arguing against their reliability and predictability, which are also independent of authoritativeness.

dvdhwk:

Except that GW is the umbrella group for the putative authority, and consistency from one of its branches can be taken as evidence that the answers provided by that branch are consistent with any answers that might be provided by the authoritative branch, thereby being authoritative.

So yes, in the matter of whether GW's new rules query service is authoritative, consistency is a dependent factor.

Platuan4th wrote:
Even if they could get an e-mail right away, it would still be their judgment call as it's their tournament and TO's always have final say in their tournaments.

Yes, I agree but I was countering his validity to bringing one to a tourney.

Platuan4th wrote:If they could do that, why couldn't they take the less effort it would require to just post an FAQ rather than e-mail, either individually or mass, people running tournaments. That way everyone would benefit.

I agree, I think it would be great if they threw up something monthly on the website with official answers to the most FAQ's.

Platuan4th wrote:As it is, I see this as no more official than if I walked up to Phil Kelly or any other Design Team member and asked them a rules question: The answer(note: NOT a ruling) to my question is only available to me and not published for the public at large with an official stamp of approval. Until published in an FAQ somewhere, those answers are still only an opinion, even if highly valued or "more authoritative".

I agree, but half the people here don't

Panic wrote:But what I see now are the people who were arguing on the losing side of the email ruling, denounce the email rulings to keep their advantages... and that's just sad...

I don't even really know what the argument's about, so I couldn't care either way which 'side' is the 'winner' in the argument. At the moment all I see is an E-Mail from GW customer services where a Customer Service Rep has voiced his opinion of a rule. I don't see an official ruling published by GW.

BYE

Nurglitch wrote:Except that GW is the umbrella group for the putative authority, and consistency from one of its branches can be taken as evidence that the answers provided by that branch are consistent with any answers that might be provided by the authoritative branch, thereby being authoritative.

That's a wonderful bit of circular logic you've got there.

"If they say the same thing over and over, they are there fore consistent, and therefore official, therefore their answers are official, therefore they are right."

I cannot believe you would actualy subscribe to a line of thinking like this Nurgy.

BYE

H.B.M.C:

That's because I don't subscribe to that line of thinking. That's just bullshiat that you made up.

I think that consistency in the new service answering rules queries by email is evidence that the answers they give are official. That's it. I believe I've pointed out that I don't think one of the answers I received was right. And I've pointed out that consistency is simply evidence. You know how evidence works, right?

Now why do I think that consistency in replies would count as evidence? It's pretty simple, if the answers are consistent, it's because the people answering the emails have an official Q&A wiki where they look up the answer and copy-paste it into emails. If the question does not appear on the wiki, then they add it and a designer answers it.

Rather than release an official FAQ, I would hypothesize that GW does this because the moment they release an FAQ people complain that the FAQ doesn't answer their questions, or that it answers them badly, or whatever new brand of idiocy prevents them from figuring out the right answer. This way they can track the questions that come in, as a note for amending the text of the 6th edition, provide consistent and official answers, and provide the kind of rules support that the community has been demanding for a long while.

If they have an official Q&A wiki, cut out the middle man and post it as an FAQ. There's absolutely no reason players should have to shout into a bucket and wait for the echoes every time a common rules ambiguity needs to be addressed.

As to the last bit about GW not wanting to print FAQs because people complain they're not exhaustive enough, well, you just made that up. It's not even logically consistent with your previous hypothesis about a rules wiki. It's not the consistency that people have a problem with. I can consistently take a crap at 7:00 am every morning. That doesn't make me an authority on the subject.