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.

Is he not officially answering questions posed directly to GW?

Then whether he does it in his spare time or not, he's still giving official answers.

You have no official standing with GW to answer questions.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Is he not officially answering questions posed directly to GW?

Then whether he does it in his spare time or not, he's still giving official answers.

You have no official standing with GW to answer questions.

You misunderstand. he is NOT giving official answers. He is giving his answer, which is not endorsed by GW. The only Official Answers are the Errata. Even the FAQ's are not official, just proposed house rules.

The difference is, if I submit a question to GW.com, John Spenser gives the answer.

Ergo, he's the official answerer.

Unlike you.

JohnHwangDD wrote:The difference is, if I submit a question to GW.com, John Spenser gives the answer.

Ergo, he's the official answerer.

Unlike you.

What kind of Banana Logic is that? He just answers questions in his own spare time. They are no more official than the INAT FAQ, or any of GW's FAQ's (which as I already told you, define themselves as unofficial).

So, ergo, he is not official.

Gwar! wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:The difference is, if I submit a question to GW.com, John Spenser gives the answer.

Ergo, he's the official answerer.

Unlike you.

What kind of Banana Logic is that? He just answers questions in his own spare time. They are no more official than the INAT FAQ, or any of GW's FAQ's (which as I already told you, define themselves as unofficial).

So, ergo, he is not official.

I think at this point we need to realize that JohnHwangDD is stumbling along the notorious "Rules Boyz answers are official" path, smile politely, and be on our way.

They are officiallly unofficial since John is the official sole answer person at the end of the official answer submission system that GW put in place.

His rulings are not recognized as official as in binding in the way errata are, but he is the official answer person for GW currently. He has said he has access to the design studio for answers.

His answers are one small step below official FAQ answers. They are a massive step above anyone not part of the design studio. That's my opinion.

Kaaihn wrote:They are officiallly unofficial since John is the official sole answer person at the end of the official answer submission system that GW put in place.

His rulings are not recognized as official as in binding in the way errata are, but he is the official answer person for GW currently. He has said he has access to the design studio for answers. His answers are one small step below official FAQ answers. They are a massive step above anyone not part of the design studio.

That's my opinion.

So we can all agree Yakface, having written most of the GW FAQ's, holds more weight than Joe Soap at GW?

I was under the impression that Yak compiles the questions and brings them to the Design Team's attention? He said as much in a thread somewhere, IIRC.

John Spencer IS the person GW appointed as their answer guy, for e-mailed submissions. Nothing the Little Troll says will change that.

Nurgleboy77 wrote:John Spencer IS the person GW appointed as their answer guy, for e-mailed submissions. Nothing the Little Troll says will change that.

Sure GW might have "appointed" him, but then they muddied the waters by forgetting one simple little thing. I have yet to see a statement from GW, that gives the official stamp of approval for the answers. One line at their website to the effect: " the answers given are official and endorsed by the Studio and as such will be incorporated in the next relevant Errata/FAQ update", would end all the debate. But its pretty obvious they are not going to do that.

As for the original question? KISS- principle is the best: Destroyed.

Gwar, you are not only wrong, you are lying. You have even been corrected before, but you continue to lie about this.

To anyone else that gives a damn.

John Spencer is paid by GW to answer rules questions. That is specifically one of his job responsibilities. While it is not his only responsibility, it is not something he does in his 'spare time'. Since many people have gotten almost instant responses, he must be devoting a decent amount of time to this aspect of his job.
Further, to avoid the "Rule boyz" problems of the past, John is the *only* person tasked with answering the rules questions for both the USA and (recently) Canada. And they have implemented an internal wiki system for tracking the questions and answers; to help with consistency.

Further, he is not a "box packer"; while it has absolutely no relevance to his position to answer rules questions; John has stated he has not packed a box in several years. For whatever reason, Gwar treats this as an insult, or at least a method to insinuate that John is of 'no consequence'.

Finally, Yak did not write any of the GW FAQs. He, along with others, had some input on what questions should be answered, and their opinions of what the answers should be. But it was GW that made the decisions and determined the 'correct' answers. Sometimes directly contradicting what Yak would have answered.


Now, it is up to each person/group to determine if they are going to abide by John's rulings or not. But to continually try and smear him is just childish.

coredump wrote:Words

And this makes him official because....

Because the GW website says to refer rules questions to him?

GW Customer Service page:

Please note: Rules questions and gaming related problems can only be answered via email please contact us at askyourquestion@games-workshop.com and we will respond within 3 business days.

Since John is the person appointed at the other end of that e-mail, he IS the "Official" rules guy until further notice.

No, he is not. He gives his opinion. Unless the Authors respond themselves, they cannot be taken as RaW nor RaI.

As for the Wiki thing, that is a load of crap. If he had a wiki, he could make it publicly viewable. Any IT grad student could do it in a week, Hell, even I have set up a Public Read private Write Wiki. There are millions of Free Wiki softwares to use. He doesn't do it because he doesn't have a wiki.

LOL...so GW makes him the rules answer guy, but since the authors (who he has access to) don't deign to answer directly, then they aren't "official" enough for you? lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:

anjinson wrote:

What if the unit...say it is a Land Raider is Outflanking (Khan and assuming termies bought it as a dedicated transport) but instead of being prevented from coming on the board can only come on say 4 inches. Assume the opponent unit was 5 inches from the board edge instead of right on it.

So some portion of the vehicle is hanging off the edge. Is that legal?

A Land Raider can easily get onto the table by Tank Shocking through the line of enemies, then yo uget out and assault their pretty little line and it all goes to hell.

But no, you cannot have a portion of a vehicle hanging off-table.

Nurgleboy77 wrote:But no, you cannot have a portion of a vehicle hanging off-table.

Sure you can! The INAT FAQ (Which is no more official than Joe Bloggs or whatever his name is) says you can!

Are we really back on this merry-go-round spinning around Mr. Spencer? Seriously?

Even if it does destroy the units it would take a serious dill weed to use that tactic. Basically, anyone that uses that kind of tactic is just a little scared bitch that won't face someone's army.

KaloranSLC wrote:Are we really back on this merry-go-round spinning around Mr. Spencer? Seriously?

Unfortunately yes, since GW can´t get its act together. The way they are treating Errata/FAQs is deeply mystifying.

Gwar! wrote:

coredump wrote:Words

And this makes him official because....

If you pay a bit of attention, you will find no where in my post do I say his answers are, or are not, official.

What I was doing was putting the lie to the crap you keep spewing. Which, I see, you do not defend, but instead try to redirect to a different topic. Classic Gwar-speak.

No, he is not. He gives his opinion. Unless the Authors respond themselves, they cannot be taken as RaW nor RaI.

You do realize that the 'author' is not the person that writes the errata/FAQ, right?
You also realize, I hope, that the 'author' is not relevant to what is, or is not, official. GW makes that determination, not the author, not you. Regardless of who's names are on the book, the IP belongs to GW, and the company gets to decide what changes can and cannot be made, and they decide who can make them. If Robin makes some statement about how the IG work, it is not 'official', but if some 6 year old says it, and GW says it is official, then it is official.

So, basically, while it is nice that you will accept the "authors" word as law, it isn't "official" unless GW says it is official.


As for John, some folks believe that by picking him to be the *single* source of rules for North America, that is GW's way of making him 'official'. You may feel differently. Personally, I would be happier if there was a public record of his responses. GW tends to shy away from making things 'official', they just folks to play however they want and have fun. The DA FAQ makes that pretty clear. Hell, even the FAQs are not "official", yet just about everyone, and just about every tourney; treats them as official.

As for the Wiki thing, that is a load of crap. If he had a wiki, he could make it publicly viewable. Any IT grad student could do it in a week, Hell, even I have set up a Public Read private Write Wiki. There are millions of Free Wiki softwares to use. He doesn't do it because he doesn't have a wiki.

Really, cool. Where is this wiki you started, I would be interested in looking at it.
Do you get the amount of traffic that GW does? Do you think that may matter? Did you have to *stop* using a wiki you were happy with to start using a different one? Does it have all the functions that a company may want for an internal wiki, used for many different tasks?
I have built a few different websites.... that does not mean I have a clue about what it takes to keep something huge going.

When this came up originally, Legoburner had quite a good response. I will not quote it all, suffice to say it shows your statement to be as foolish as it sounds. But his final bit was

It took 2 months to get Dakka's wiki up and running from an off the shelf package, our traffic is an order of magnitude less than the main GW site, and I am definitely an expert in the area having managed websites that handle well over a million DB hits per hour. 'Simply' is one hell of an understatement.

Look, you don't want to follow the rulings that John puts out, cool. Don't. Play the game that you enjoy, and that your friends enjoy.
But stop lying and making things up.

It really is simple. If GW cannot handle it, they are doing something wrong. Untill the Wiki Becomes Public, I will have to call Bull**** on it. Sorry.

As for lego taking 2 Months:
That is 1 guy doing it in his spare time (I assume). GW would get it properly done. Oh but wait, it doesn't sell Space Marines. I suppose we will never see it.

Nurgleboy makes an excellent point. GW officially sends you to askyourquestion@games-workshop.com for rules questions.

The person typing the responses behind that address is irrelevant; it is the official place to ask your questions. It could be John typing the updates to the FAQ's for all you know, with input from the design studio. The only difference between that and email would be availability.

-Errata are published text corrections from an official source on 40K rules.
-FAQ's are published guidance from an official source on 40K rules.
-Answers from askyourquestion@games-workshop.com are direct responses from an official source on 40K rules.

I take back what I said earlier about FAQ's having slightly more weight. John's answers carry as much weight as the FAQ's. They are simply available in a different format.

Kaaihn wrote:John's answers carry as much weight as the FAQ's.

So you agree they hold Zero Weight then? As the FAQ's admit themselves, they are not official.

Gwar! wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:John's answers carry as much weight as the FAQ's.

So you agree they hold Zero Weight then? As the FAQ's admit themselves, they are not official.

As official as FAQ answers, and the same amount of weight. How much weight you give to them is of course up to you.

They give the same caveat to soft material as they do to every rule in the book actually, which is to say that none of it is binding. Use it or not, as long as you and your opponent come to agreement.

The 'unofficial' nonsense that people tout is just sad though. Unofficial would be if people were emailing John directly for answers and he was giving them out in his spare time, with no official recognition or mandate to do so. Askyourquestion@games-workshop.com is absolutely officially recognized as a source of rules answers; GW sends you there themselves on their website. John has a mandate as a job function to handle these questions, with input from the design studio as needed to insure accuracy.

Wow this is getting pretty out of hand.

As John is a representative of GW and has been appointed to that position by someone within the company, his answers are GW's answers, and the closest thing we will get to 'Official' until GW releases Codex: John Spencer's Answers.

Back on topic:
The rules don't specifically cover this situation. I must say I am inclined to think they would be destroyed, however, nothing in the rules specifically says so. People are making inferences from different rules (disembarking from transports, deep striking, etc) but there is no actual statement.

On the other hand, If someone pulled this on me I would have another 2 hours of time to do stuff that I enjoy more! Haha, well done, you won the game, whilst eliminating both mine and your enjoyment.

Gwar! wrote: Untill the Wiki Becomes Public, I will have to call Bull**** on it. Sorry.

Why stop there? Demand that he publish his personal diary online to prove that he actually exists.

And heck, why not insist that the designers publish all of their design notes, or else you'll consider all the codexes unofficial?



The fact that a reference exists in no way makes it compulsory to make it publicly accessible... particularly if the expense of doing so outweighs the perceived value of it being public.

GW already have a mammoth, resource-heavy, dreadfully slow website. I can certainly believe that making the wiki public would simply be too much of a drain on their resources. I can also well believe, going by their track record for web design, that they simply don't have the know-how to do it in any sort of efficient way.