Switch Theme:

Do we need to revisit YMDC rule #2?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





Mods, feel free to move this if it better belongs in a discussion forum.

Rule 2 states: The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Games Workshop are easily spoofed and are notorious for being inconsistent and so should not be relied on.

As a player from the bad old days of 3rd/4th ed, I know too well why this rule exists. FAQs were rare in the extreme, and didn't cover the actual major rules issues of the day. GW was unresponsive to questions, and when they had their rulesboyz phone line to call, you often got 3 different answers in 2 different calls. We had to clarify that you had to go by RAW, because designer's intent was utterly unknowable from the stony silence we received from the HQ, unless one counted the puff pieces in WD that often got basic things wrong.

However, this is a new day for GW. They are posting regularly, even if they aren't in FAQ form. Through documents like the Designer Commentary, or other Community posts, we have a window into how rules are intended to be played. We know that CSM players should be using the Index datasheet for stats and rules, and the latest points from the Codex for their cost.

I understand that this is not an "official" document, and perhaps for some cases we should defer to the FAQ. But for some others such as the points issue above, where commentary is made through official GW channels, should that rule be relaxed in this brave, new world of actual interaction?
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 frightnight wrote:
Mods, feel free to move this if it better belongs in a discussion forum.

Rule 2 states: The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Games Workshop are easily spoofed and are notorious for being inconsistent and so should not be relied on.

As a player from the bad old days of 3rd/4th ed, I know too well why this rule exists. FAQs were rare in the extreme, and didn't cover the actual major rules issues of the day. GW was unresponsive to questions, and when they had their rulesboyz phone line to call, you often got 3 different answers in 2 different calls. We had to clarify that you had to go by RAW, because designer's intent was utterly unknowable from the stony silence we received from the HQ, unless one counted the puff pieces in WD that often got basic things wrong.

However, this is a new day for GW. They are posting regularly, even if they aren't in FAQ form. Through documents like the Designer Commentary, or other Community posts, we have a window into how rules are intended to be played. We know that CSM players should be using the Index datasheet for stats and rules, and the latest points from the Codex for their cost.

I understand that this is not an "official" document, and perhaps for some cases we should defer to the FAQ. But for some others such as the points issue above, where commentary is made through official GW channels, should that rule be relaxed in this brave, new world of actual interaction?
No. I can just as easily fake a FB post as an Email. Furthermore, not everyone likes signing their life away to Zuckerberg and his merry band of regressives and thus don't have a FB account (myself for example.)
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




I think everyone is taking the Designers' Commentary as essentially a FAQ already.

I guess an important question is whether the Community or Facebook posts are actually predictive of the FAQs. Like, do we know that this isn't just the rulesboyz except with an internet connection instead of a phone?

Another issue would be the difficulty of finding these rulings. It's kinda TFG to insist that your opponent abide by a ruling which seems to run counter to the published rules when they weren't aware of it and it was only ever posted on a Facebook page that they've never visited.
   
Made in gb
Huge Hierodule






Nottingham (yay!)

FB posts can be linked to, and even if neither you nor your opponent use FB they're visible to the public.

   
 
Forum Index » Nuts & Bolts
Go to: