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.

Yeah, I know, but they seem so darned useful. I'm going to leave it in for now, but we can remove it if it causes problems.

While I'm not quite in the "one post" rules camp, I do like that a lot better than the current "I'll post until everyone else is too tired of listening to me attack everything and abandons the thread" rule that obtains currently.

I like the rules as given above.

Gwar! wrote:I admit excessive "I agree with Gwar! Person XYZ" can be annoying, but it is needed to some extent. 1 Person can be wrong, 2 or 3 people together are less likely to be.

I think QFT and "i agree" posts should be deleted in general.
Voting is available to gather opinions in this way.

1hadhq wrote:

Gwar! wrote:I admit excessive "I agree with Gwar! Person XYZ" can be annoying, but it is needed to some extent. 1 Person can be wrong, 2 or 3 people together are less likely to be.

I think QFT and "i agree" posts should be deleted in general.
Voting is available to gather opinions in this way.

OT: does anyone else see the Irony of this post?

1hadhq wrote:

Gwar! wrote:I admit excessive "I agree with Gwar! Person XYZ" can be annoying, but it is needed to some extent. 1 Person can be wrong, 2 or 3 people together are less likely to be.

I think QFT and "i agree" posts should be deleted in general.
Voting is available to gather opinions in this way.

I agree
QFT

Harkainos wrote:

1hadhq wrote:

Gwar! wrote:I admit excessive "I agree with Gwar! Person XYZ" can be annoying, but it is needed to some extent. 1 Person can be wrong, 2 or 3 people together are less likely to be.

I think QFT and "i agree" posts should be deleted in general.
Voting is available to gather opinions in this way.

I agree
QFT

+1 ^_^

Tru'dat.

DOUBLE TRUE!

See? Too easy to distract everyone from the Topic.

Since i started it, let me try to get this back On Topic.

- restrictions: 1 post is too much, maybe we could reduce the amount of less well thougth posts with a timeout?
I do not believe its possible to dish out several well thougth contributive posts in a few minutes.

-Stay on topic: Not reading the whole original question is often what divides a thread into 2 factions.
A "how do you play it" thread doesnt need a "thats not the RAW" answer.

-accept 40k as a worldwide distributed game. Different culture and a posters environment ( playing 40k in one of 5 languages supported )
may lead to a different opinion on the subject. A definition of the usable sources would be fine. Would like to add the question if we
apply every errata published by GW ? The company marks their errata often as (.. insert native tongue here.. / english codex ).
How do we treat it here?

Iorek wrote:2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Askyourquestion@games-workshop.com are technically official, but they are easily spoofed and should not be relied on.

I'm trying to understand how not being able to gain instant gratification of validity makes an answer any less correct? Help me out here Iorek.

I can falsely post information and claim it is from a FAQ as easily as posting a fake email. It takes longer for someone to independently validate the email, so on those grounds you should disregard them entirely? That doesn't make sense to me.

I can ring Gwar! via Skype and get an instant answer, but who cares? He's nobody, same as the rest of us. There are two official sources of answers. The FAQ's, and the official email address. The emails are no more spoofable than anything else when you are talking about forum posting.

If someone tells you the answer is x because the FAQ or an email response says it is, you can take that person at their word (be it a forum post or a printout) or you can go validate it yourself, with complete reliability. Go here and look at the FAQ yourself, or copy and paste the question in an email to askyourquestion@games-workshop.com. Reliable validity. No spoofing possible in the validation process.

You cannot validate an Email, ever, because you don't have any proof it was ever sent from the same two people.

Kaaihn, I understand where you're coming from, but from what I've seen the email answers don't necessarily contain the reason for a ruling. If they do, then you may certainly cut and paste the argument here into Dakka (logic can be checked rather easily).

If you fake information from a FAQ, our posters will call you on it. People check sources in YMDC all the time, so that's not a big deal.

Again, these are the tenets of You Make Da Call, not hard and fast rules. They're basically a toolbox to allow posters to cut out some of the crud that clutters up this forum in particular.

Gwar! wrote:You cannot validate an Email, ever, because you don't have any proof it was ever sent from the same two people.

Exactly, also I can open up my email box using the wireless connection at my local game store and show everyone at the store an email from the "Official Source" at GW, and make it read explicitly, "<Insert my name here> automatically wins any game he plays on the roll of a 2 or better on a D6, If a 1 is rolled his opponent just loses."

Its not about instant verification, because you can get 100 people to all ask the same question, even if they all get the same response, guess what? the 101st person with that question will ALSO need to email and ask the same question, he cannot rely on his peers. If GW sees that a specific issue is so pressing that it needs to be posted on the website as an Errata, they will, but untill they do, there is no "official rule." Even if they post it as a FAQ it is still a "Studio House Rule" Otherwise the question should be resolved based on the information that you have at hand, Namely the Rulebook, Codex, and Existing Erratas.

Demogerg wrote:

Gwar! wrote:You cannot validate an Email, ever, because you don't have any proof it was ever sent from the same two people.

Exactly, also I can open up my email box using the wireless connection at my local game store and show everyone at the store an email from the "Official Source" at GW, and make it read explicitly, "<Insert my name here> automatically wins any game he plays on the roll of a 2 or better on a D6, If a 1 is rolled his opponent just loses."

You two are killing me with this level of ignorance. When you send an email to the address on GW's website, and you get a response from that same address with your original in the chain, you have more than reasonable proof that it is from the address you sent to originally. This isn't national security here requiring electronic signatures and encryption.

You have the same expectation the response came from who you sent the original to as you do with anyone you choose to email. The official source for answers is the askyourquestions email address, not specifically one person on the other end. If one answer comes from John Spencer and the next answer comes from Joe Smith who they happen to have hired as John's assistant, as long as they both came in response to an email to the askyourquestions address then it is an answer from the official source they have provided.

And Demogerg, stop with the stupidity about faking something to show someone else. I've clearly stated enough times now that a printout or a forum posting or a forward is not what anyone should be accepting that I have to assume you are intentionally clouding the issue for some personal reason. If someone tells you they got an answer from GW, you open your own mail client and email them and get an answer directly. That is validation, the same as your browsing to the FAQ and reading it yourself is.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Iorek wrote:Kaaihn, I understand where you're coming from, but from what I've seen the email answers don't necessarily contain the reason for a ruling. If they do, then you may certainly cut and paste the argument here into Dakka (logic can be checked rather easily).

If you fake information from a FAQ, our posters will call you on it. People check sources in YMDC all the time, so that's not a big deal.

Again, these are the tenets of You Make Da Call, not hard and fast rules. They're basically a toolbox to allow posters to cut out some of the crud that clutters up this forum in particular.

Yeah, the reasoning is not always provided, but I have found that if you politely ask for the reasoning so you understand how to correctly interpret the rules for next time, it will generally be given. The email address should be as much of a tool in the box to obtain correct answers as the FAQ's. Both are 100% completely independently verifiable.

Kaaihn wrote:You two are killing me with this level of ignorance. When you send an email to the address on GW's website, and you get a response from that same address with your original in the chain, you have more than reasonable proof that it is from the address you sent to originally. This isn't national security here requiring electronic signatures and encryption.

Oh my? The same address?

Well, that settles it, there clearly is no way of faking the "From" Address in an Email. Please forgive my ignorance Lord Kaaihn.

Probably has been mentioned, and it's one of my greatest pet peeves, and sorry for totally interjecting in your running conversation.

Start banning dictionary definitions of words.

Some words have meanings in a 40k rulebook sense, and broader meanings in general english. Things like "casualties" and "mounted" come to mind....

bsohi wrote:Probably has been mentioned, and it's one of my greatest pet peeves, and sorry for totally interjecting in your running conversation.

Start banning dictionary definitions of words.

Some words have meanings in a 40k rulebook sense, and broader meanings in general english. Things like "casualties" and "mounted" come to mind....

Yes, this needs to be added, having just been lambasted for not using the literal sense of mounted.

Misplacement of suggestion, sorry

Gwar! wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:You two are killing me with this level of ignorance. When you send an email to the address on GW's website, and you get a response from that same address with your original in the chain, you have more than reasonable proof that it is from the address you sent to originally. This isn't national security here requiring electronic signatures and encryption.

Oh my? The same address?

Well, that settles it, there clearly is no way of faking the "From" Address in an Email. Please forgive my ignorance Lord Kaaihn.

Again with the fake objections? I didn't say it is impossible to receive an email with a fake from address. I said if you get a response from that same address with your original in the chain, you have more than reasonable proof that it is from the address you sent to originally.

Are you worried about some other dastardly 40K player finding out your email address and sending you fake responses with an exact duplicate of your sent item appended? That would require someone not only knowing the email address you are sending from, but being sophisticated and dedicated enough to capture your emails after you send them so they would have the exact copy to include in the fake response. What makes you think anyone cares enough about you (or anyone else) enough to go to that much effort?

If you are that paranoid about your email security you shouldn't be using standard email, ever.

No, you miss the point. I am saying that anyone can fake a response, so emails to them should hold no wait in discussions.

The FAQs are published... come on it's not like someone is saying they had a conversation on the London tube with Phil Kelly. These are documents. Get over it and you will be happy you did.

G


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Demogerg wrote:

Gwar! wrote:You cannot validate an Email, ever, because you don't have any proof it was ever sent from the same two people.

Exactly, also I can open up my email box using the wireless connection at my local game store and show everyone at the store an email from the "Official Source" at GW, and make it read explicitly, "<Insert my name here> automatically wins any game he plays on the roll of a 2 or better on a D6, If a 1 is rolled his opponent just loses."

Good luck with that... it could help improve your game though.

G

Gwar! wrote:No, you miss the point. I am saying that anyone can fake a response, so emails to them should hold no wait in discussions.

Responses aren't faked. Original emails are faked. People receive random spam with fake from email addresses all the time.

What you are suggesting doesn't happen. Not that it can't, just that it requires sophistication and personal attention. Outside actual espionage, you should have no fear that an original email you send will come back as a response from a fake source.

-Facepalm- You still miss the point. I can spoof an Email MYSELF sating "Phil Kelly Likes bananas" from GW and claim it is official.

Iorek wrote:4. 4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).

I think this one could do with a bit more explanation for new users. I realise they're capitalised, but a bit of a heads up that 'Rules as Written' and 'How You Would Play It' are styles of YMDC thread would help avoid new posters from sitting there wondering why they can't just play by the rules...

insaniak wrote:would help avoid new posters from sitting there wondering why they can't just play by the rules...

New Posters? I wonder this every day I look at this forum.

Gwar! wrote:-Facepalm- You still miss the point. I can spoof an Email MYSELF sating "Phil Kelly Likes bananas" from GW and claim it is official.

Have you been reading nothing?! Who cares if you do?! If someone tells you GW gave x answer, you can go validate it yourself.

If you show me a spoofed email, and I go independently validate it and get a different answer, I know one of those answers must be wrong. That is the whole point of independent validation. What you are saying is akin to doctoring a FAQ and bringing it to your local store. I don't have to take what you show me at face value, I can go independently validate it for myself.

Let me try and make a nice clear summary here.

-Email answers are the same level of official as FAQ's.
-You are never obligated to take an answer not printed in a rulebook as valid unless you independently verify it yourself.
-FAQ's can be independently verified at Games-workshop.com.
-Emailed responses can be independently verified by you yourself asking that same question from your own email account to askyourquestion@games-workshop.com.

Hopefully that clears this nonsense up.

Kaaihn wrote: What you are saying is akin to doctoring a FAQ and bringing it to your local store. I don't have to take what you show me at face value, I can go independently validate it for myself.

That's going to make your game take a while...

And what happens then when we have 2 Different answers? How do I know YOU haven't faked the email?

Gwar! wrote:And what happens then when we have 2 Different answers? How do I know YOU haven't faked the email?

Once more than one person shows up with the same answer, it'll be obvious who doctored an e-mail. If you mean you both got conflicitng answers from the source, e-mail again asking for clarification.

bsohi wrote:Probably has been mentioned, and it's one of my greatest pet peeves, and sorry for totally interjecting in your running conversation.

Start banning dictionary definitions of words.

Some words have meanings in a 40k rulebook sense, and broader meanings in general english. Things like "casualties" and "mounted" come to mind....

Lets just make a practice of banning anything that can be used against us in an arguement, last week I had someone show me an Errata that showed me I was wrong about something, does that mean I should push to have Erratas banned from the site.......

The dictionary has been used many times by both sides in many different threads, I feel it should be just as valid as any other official source for determining what a word means.....

Kaaihn, the point here is that even if you cut-and-paste an entire email and post it up here, there's no guarantee to the other readers that it's authentic. Yes, another poster could email the same address, but it's not a level of verification that we want to get into here at Dakka.

Regardless, I'm leaving that tenet as it stands (for now).

Insaniak, I will add those definitions. Thank you for the suggestion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tenets edited. Also added a line about the dictionary definitions.