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.

Thanks again John for being here and being so responsive. We appreciate both your hard work and your "off duty" participation. It's really helpful.

@ JOS

Im not sure how GW operates, but for now you are the only one here in the U.S. doing this for the community of us who play right? Or is this company wide?

So as a question to you, and maybe a issue to bring forth to others, is what if GW Australia decided to have an individual start taking E-mails and answering questions like you do for their area?

Where im going is that if while you are the only one in the US doing it, what happens if another facet of your company starts doing it as well? At that point we could get conflicting answers to the same questions. Both of whom, since now working for GW, are on totally equal ground.

If you are the only one in GW doing this for all of us, then thats a null point and awesome of them to have you do it. But if the freedom is open to them to start having 1 person per country or region.. that could get hairy.

I agree with Mannahnin. I was in the bashing rulezboyz camp (you know, call them three times for a yes/no question and get three answers... ), but I'm inclined to treat your rulings as more valid since they have consistency. And you're posting here on Dakka where all the cool people are so that must mean you're cool.

Yes, his rulings (and INAT FAQ) aren't official, but hell, most of the time we just want to get on with our game and any document or resource that helps do that is useful.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

insaniak wrote:

It's more effective because you haven't chosen to resolve conflicts a different way. The group I game with tends to resolve conflicts simply by deciding how to play it amongst ourselves when the issue arises... and if an FAQ comes along that agrees with us, that's just gravy.

Because I play in a store with a reasonably large 40k gaming population. As I've already explained, when rules issues come up they tend to persist if there is no rules moderation (which, since store games are 90% friendly pickups, doesn't seem to exist). Likewise, the gaming population is split between regulars and random people who walk in, so bouncing from game to game playing by different rules isn't appealing to people who play regularly. In short, the need arises for a consistent FAQ. INAT was presented and got no positive feedback. JohnOSpencer rulings were presented as an alternative and did. In short, my local gaming community feels that John of GW "Knows how it's played".

There's a lot of problems with the "group decision" method as a long term solution in a diverse gaming setting based around an independent store. First, you get the party split between Grognards who "always played it this way", Intelligensia who play it as the "Rules are Ironclad", and the Cheez-herders that dislike anything "cheesey". So resolving any one rules issue is almost impossible while keeping everyone happy because the outsiders are going to cry foul politics on the part of the insiders. An impartial GW opinion has been the best moderation.

sourclams wrote:

Because I play in a store with a reasonably large 40k gaming population. As I've already explained, when rules issues come up they tend to persist if there is no rules moderation (which, since store games are 90% friendly pickups, doesn't seem to exist). Likewise, the gaming population is split between regulars and random people who walk in, so bouncing from game to game playing by different rules isn't appealing to people who play regularly. In short, the need arises for a consistent FAQ. INAT was presented and got no positive feedback. JohnOSpencer rulings were presented as an alternative and did. In short, my local gaming community feels that John of GW "Knows how it's played".

There's a lot of problems with the "group decision" method as a long term solution in a diverse gaming setting based around an independent store. First, you get the party split between Grognards who "always played it this way", Intelligensia who play it as the "Rules are Ironclad", and the Cheez-herders that dislike anything "cheesey". So resolving any one rules issue is almost impossible while keeping everyone happy because the outsiders are going to cry foul politics on the part of the insiders. An impartial GW opinion has been the best moderation.

Im with you on useing what works for your group. If one isnt accecpted, but another is, then by all means use it.

I think the reason the INAT FAQ not being accecpted in a lot of areas though is because of how some people feel about it. I see a lot of people lash out it saying "who do they think they are" etc when it comes to making rulings and interpretations on questions. Even though JOS his group could have identical answers as Yak and the Council everytime, because we are merly players and not someone who works for GW, some people instantly throw it out on that basis. Which is fair, because its there for them to use or not use as they see fit.

On that same token, if I walked into your store and we had a game and an issue came up in which we did not agree, and you waved JOS answer saying I got this from GW, I would not accecpt it. Being clear, this is only if it was an issue we did not agree.. not that the answer came from any individual source specifically. I would simply say lets D6 it. For the pick up games I think simply rolling off is enough, when people dont have a "Official" FAQ to use to resolve the issue. I, in an attempt to not waist time, personally allow 5 min max for either side to explain why they feel something is one way or another. If in that time netiher side can agree, then roll and move on.

However, if your store collects answers from JOS and says these are official for any Tournament we hold, and they have them out and posted where I can get to them, by all means I would use them the whole day no question. I guess what im getting at, is that mid game a problem arrises, and the only thing you have in attempt to sway my opinion on an issue is a E-mail, im not going to accecpt it.

Marius Xerxes wrote:

I think the reason the INAT FAQ not being accecpted in a lot of areas though is because of how some people feel about it. I see a lot of people lash out it saying "who do they think they are" etc when it comes to making rulings and interpretations on questions. Even though JOS his group could have identical answers as Yak and the Council everytime, because we are merly players and not someone who works for GW, some people instantly throw it out on that basis. Which is fair, because its there for them to use or not use as they see fit.

This is very true. However, haven't there been some meaningful differences between the INAT FAQ and the response given by John Spencer (insofar as they have been reported on this forum)?

The Shokk Attack Gun Scatter (Spencer No/Inat Yes)
Deff Rollas on Vehicles (Spencer No/Inat Yes, later revised to No)

These are two that come up off the top of my head.

I think that most issues INAT and Spencer have an [independent?] consensus.

Marius' comment was hypothetical.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

olympia wrote:This is very true. However, haven't there been some meaningful differences between the INAT FAQ and the response given by John Spencer (insofar as they have been reported on this forum)?

To be honest, I coudlnt tell you. I haven't read much of JOS E-Mail messages posted on here. Though I am waiting to see what JOS and Yak say about getting those answers gathered up and letting me take over keeping them updated on here as people send them to me.

As far as meaningful differances, this is only going to be for the people who dont agree with how the Council ruled in the INAT FAQ. You have both sides to a argument at play here. While the Council ruled one way, JOS and his group ruled the other. So when a person is at odds with what the INAT FAQ says and they have a E-mail from JOS saying otherwise, they are going to be happy to wave it around saying this is how it should be, cause this person from GW says so.

But the real point is, waving around the INAT FAQ or JOS answers are both things that have no legs to stand on should your opponent choose not to use either. What everyone has to understand is that for either document be useful, all parties have to know about and agree to use them prior.

Ozymandias wrote:Marius' comment was hypothetical.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Well yes and no. While not being the reason all people throw it out, I am sure it is for a number of them.

you could roll a die as to whose answer to use...

usernamesareannoying wrote:you could roll a die as to whose answer to use...

Well if one answer supports one person, and the other answer supports the other person, then rolling the dice for which to use would result in the same thing with or without the documentation there.

Marius, I should have quoted Olympia, I was referring to this:

olympia wrote:

Marius Xerxes wrote:

I think the reason the INAT FAQ not being accecpted in a lot of areas though is because of how some people feel about it. I see a lot of people lash out it saying "who do they think they are" etc when it comes to making rulings and interpretations on questions. Even though JOS his group could have identical answers as Yak and the Council everytime, because we are merly players and not someone who works for GW, some people instantly throw it out on that basis. Which is fair, because its there for them to use or not use as they see fit.

This is very true. However, haven't there been some meaningful differences between the INAT FAQ and the response given by John Spencer (insofar as they have been reported on this forum)?

Marius Xerxes wrote:@ JOS

Im not sure how GW operates, but for now you are the only one here in the U.S. doing this for the community of us who play right? Or is this company wide?

So as a question to you, and maybe a issue to bring forth to others, is what if GW Australia decided to have an individual start taking E-mails and answering questions like you do for their area?

Where im going is that if while you are the only one in the US doing it, what happens if another facet of your company starts doing it as well? At that point we could get conflicting answers to the same questions. Both of whom, since now working for GW, are on totally equal ground.

If you are the only one in GW doing this for all of us, then thats a null point and awesome of them to have you do it. But if the freedom is open to them to start having 1 person per country or region.. that could get hairy.

Actually, I know Canada is answering questions by email also, though I'm not sure if it is an advertised answering rules questions or just helping out a customer who emailed. We have been in communication on a couple of specific questions. It is definitely possible we could disagree on questions, which would cause some interesting problems.

Marius Xerxes wrote:<snip> Though I am waiting to see what JOS and Yak say about getting those answers gathered up and letting me take over keeping them updated on here as people send them to me.

On this subject, my boss is ok with the theory, but it has to be handled by means other than BCCing you on all emails I answer. We're just not comfortable with that. Plus you'd my answers to deep, thought provoking questions like "Do Orks re-roll their armor saves?"(real question)

When I get caught up from the Christmas backlog(i'm about 1 week behind right now, with a short week this week and next, so no idea when that'll be), I'll be updating our internal Wiki more often and I can just copy and paste the sections by army ever so often.

I'm open to ideas if anyone has them.

No im fine with not being BCC'd. I figured we could set something up on Dakka where we announce to people to send me your reply's they ask, then i post them up and you can review them from time to time and say yes this one was me, or no we changed our mind etc.

Tough if you wanted to send me what you put into Wiki and not the direct responses yourself, that is fine as well. I don't need to know who is asking what, especially without their consent like would be the case if they send it to me themselves.

On this subject, my boss is ok with the theory, but it has to be handled by means other than BCCing you on all emails I answer. We're just not comfortable with that. Plus you'd my answers to deep, thought provoking questions like "Do Orks re-roll their armor saves?"(real question)

When I get caught up from the Christmas backlog(i'm about 1 week behind right now, with a short week this week and next, so no idea when that'll be), I'll be updating our internal Wiki more often and I can just copy and paste the sections by army ever so often.

I'm open to ideas if anyone has them.

You could always hire me to do the wiki <maniacal laugh>

The issue I have with RAI rulings is that they are opinion... which can differ from person to person

For example: Nob bikers and paint boyz giving a boss FNP, by raw this is an extremely difficult question to answer... it uses the wording "his unit" as does snikrot... sooo earlier by RAI it may have been RAI to say snikrot is not supposed to give ambush to ICs and painboys were... but ruling one way or the other changes how the game is played.

I'm a teacher... imagine I were to go and say I grade by what I think a student should get not by what my grade book says... It scares me how many issues that would cause! In grading I need an objective method of coming to a conclusion... such as a rubric. A rule set should be the same.

I do understand that the codexes and BRB are not written by the same people... and that GW is producing a hobby/mini line not a game, but there should be an editor, or some outside team that should check for agreement in rules writting styles for each book.

A simple check list could be made.

1) Do the rules on the unit description page match the rules on the summary sheet?
2) Do the special rules for this unit use the wording in the BRB?
3) Do the special rules that are ment to effect the unit address the issue of IC's?

LOL I'm such a by-the-rules nerd I would be willing to check this for them and sign the agreement that they could sue the crap out of me if I let the rules slip to people :p

Your assertion assumes that a rubric is not at all subjective, and that is false.

ummm do you want me to post a non subjectie rubric?

http://paer.rutgers.edu/ScientificAbilities/Downloads/DesExp/2007193LAB09.PDF

This is a rubric for a lab. Rutgers university spent a few years producing the rubrics while I was getting my masters degree there. I use a very specific rubric like this.

And don't tell me the wording "relative" is subjective the way it's used because then you're bringing up a slippery slope arguement and having read many of your responses on this site I give you more credibility then that

However if you are telling me that the typical rubric you would see from a teacher is subjective I would agree.

But don't tell me "false" and try to discount my statement like that k? Thanks

If that rubric had been written by GW, it would be half a page long and involve dicing on the periodic table.

sourclams wrote:If that rubric had been written by GW, it would be half a page long and involve dicing on the periodic table.

That Rubric was written by 3-4 doctorate candidates and piloted in labs by masters students like myself. It is extremely objective. I spend a lot of time with my rubrics just so they can be like this.

It took 3 years to produce and that is only a small section of it.

And yes... GW is less objective then myself :p

Well, since the GW FAQ's reference the INAT FAQ and a thanks to yakface and the INAT council, why can't they just take the INAT as it is written and slap a GW "Approved" on it? Then, boom, done. And free labor too.

whitedragon wrote:Well, since the GW FAQ's reference the INAT FAQ and a thanks to yakface and the INAT council, why can't they just take the INAT as it is written and slap a GW "Approved" on it? Then, boom, done. And free labor too.

QFT

I would accept this.

frgsinwntr wrote:ummm do you want me to post a non subjectie rubric?

http://paer.rutgers.edu/ScientificAbilities/Downloads/DesExp/2007193LAB09.PDF

Your document says:
"A judgment is made about the results, but it is not reasonable or coherent."
and
"An acceptable judgment is made about the result, but the reasoning is flawed or incomplete."

It is purely subjective whether one assesses the judgment as "not reasonable" or "the reasoning is flawed."

olympia wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:ummm do you want me to post a non subjectie rubric?

http://paer.rutgers.edu/ScientificAbilities/Downloads/DesExp/2007193LAB09.PDF

Your document says:
"A judgment is made about the results, but it is not reasonable or coherent."
and
"An acceptable judgment is made about the result, but the reasoning is flawed or incomplete."

It is purely subjective whether one assesses the judgment as "not reasonable" or "the reasoning is flawed."

Not subjective at all in the context of the material. For example, a reasonable or coherent judgement should follow the facts/results gained or stated. If this does not happen in the experiment/conclusion, then the judgement is not reasonable or coherent. On the second point, a judgement would be flawed or incomplete if it goes against the facts/results that are stated, or the author does not establish a link between the conclusion and the data.

olympia wrote:It is purely subjective whether one assesses the judgment as "not reasonable" or "the reasoning is flawed.

That's just, like, your opinion, man.

Whenever you are deciding between "Seriously flawed" and "minor errors", there is a grey zone. That, inherently, introduces subjective opinion.

Plus, you have control over the test, and the rubric 'for' John will not have that.
Further, a lab is designed to be fairly pointed with fairly specific outcomes predicted/desired. That is a far far cry from a game as open ended as 40K.

Yes, if you have control of the test, and the rubric, and are willing to only allow questions in the test that allow for a fairly objective rubric, it can be done. (It is how SAT Type tests are handled); but that is not the situation here.

Thanks White dragon, exactly my thoughts.

Core Dump, I'm not going to take this off topic... but neither of those words show up in the rubric for that exact reason. The wording is very carefully chosen to avoid subjectivity.

Control over the test... not sure what your point here is but allow me to restate mine in different words.

The point again is that there should be some time and effort put into rules decisions... not gut feelings.

You're looking for a technical rules set. GW doesn't write technical rules sets. For GW, the rulebooks are merely the medium by which they convey their "gut feelings" on how to play the game.

Yes, the world would be better if they were technical writers and they did update weekly. They're not and they don't.

The best representation you can get of the hard rules seems to be asking John Spencer because he's a representative of a focus group of GW employees empowered to make rules calls.

Nurglitch, Frgsnwntr, and the rest of the logical constructivist camp,

If build a rigorous and logical framework from a base of sloppy rules based on common English usage without making decisions which determine which of multiple meanings or intentions existed in the mind of the writers, your system will not produce singular, definitive answers. Instead, the best that your system will be able to do is produce sets of results which would be reasonable given the rules. The fact that your system of producing answers may be rigorous and systematic does not mean that the system's answers will be "correct".

Attempting to build a rigorous and systematic framework for 40k is a fine and noble idea, but that doesn't make any particular framework for that attempt automatically correct just because it was constructed according to what is taught in logic class.