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.

Kaaihn wrote:You two are killing me with this level of ignorance.
And Demogerg, stop with the stupidity about faking something to show someone else.

I resent you calling me Ignorant and Stupid.

The fact that you have repeatedly failed to see the point that I am coming from does not give you the right to dismiss my claim and insult me.

all that I am trying to say is that there is a difference between a source and a rule.

Rulebook, Codex, Errata, FAQ, and GW Employee are all Official Sources.
Rulebook, Codex, Errata are all Official Rules.

the FAQ is commonly taken as a house rule for FLGS, and it can in general, be expected to be taken as an rule, it is not, however actually an official rule. There is a clear distinction here that GW admits to.

The GW Employees email system can be used for rules clarification to decide on how to house-rule your problem, however, their response is NOT an Official Rule because they are just either clarifing something that you missed in the text (which means the official rule was there all along), or giving an example of a house rule that they have come up with to solve the problem. (in which case it is a perfect example of the soft material like they state on their website)

If an Issue comes up repeatedly they may add the appropriate response to the FAQ section of the website, and here is a key bit------
If FAQS are not taken as Official Rules, then the responses to the not so Frequently asked questions can also not be taken as official rules

The Example given about email spoofing was just an example, and you misunderstood the point completely.

Yes, you can email GW and verify on a ruling if you would like, but when your response is different from mine, and they both appear 100% legit, what do you do? Rule it however you want. Its a game, and these are house-rule solutions.




Short read version

GW Employees are a Less viable source than FAQS, and GW admits that FAQS are not Official Rules.

Iorek wrote: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.

I completely agree. There should be no effort to obtain validation on a forum. The point of the forum is for someone to raise a question, and someone to post an answer.

-If the answer posted is from a FAQ, it is up to the individual reader to validate the answer was posted correctly.
-If the answer posted is from an email, it is up to the individual reader to validate the answer was posted correctly.
-If the answer posted is just some guy on the internet's opinion, it is up to the individual reader how much value he wants to give it.

I think that just about everybody can agree that FAQs are not rules in the same way that what is written in your codex or 5th ed core book is a rule.

I also think that just about everybody can agree that in any setting where such a rules contention would matter (tournament), the FAQs are basically going to be adopted as rules in the same way that you have to follow what's printed in your codex or core book.

The obvious correlation is to treat FAQs as core rules for rule discussion purposes, but I know there are those who won't be dragged kicking and screaming into compliance.

DJ Illuminati wrote:

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.....

Dictionary definitions have no real place in a discussion on rules. GW could say the word "banana" means "Shooting" in their game.

Demogerg wrote:all that I am trying to say is that there is a difference between a source and a rule.

You did indeed start out by stating that there is a difference between a source and a rule. Third response from you in though on this topic, and you were on the bandwagon with Gwar! going on about how you could forge the response so they should not be included in any form of discussion. I am referring to your post where you quoted me and then altered the quote.

When I repeatedly say people shouldn't take rules not printed in the books that someone may have altered at face value, and you and Gwar! then repeatedly respond how you don't want emailed answers as part of a discussion because what you are seeing could be faked, it quickly begins to look like ignorance on your parts.

How much clearer can I make it that anything someone tells or shows you that they claim came from an official GW source should be validated by you before accepting it?

Sourclams above is completely correct in his summation. An official answer is an official answer. Not rules in the same way the books are, but validated official answers are generally taken as canon in many tournaments and games. Intentionally ignoring them is ridiculous.

Gwar!, you, myself, and everyone else on all these boards don't know the game better than the developers. When the developers (or their assigned representatives) give an answer, it's pretty arrogant and silly to ignore it because you think you know better. At least in my opinion.

Kaaihn wrote:Gwar!, you, myself, and everyone else on all these boards don't know the game better than the developers. When the developers (or their assigned representatives) give an answer, it's pretty arrogant and silly to ignore it because you think you know better. At least in my opinion.

Ah. See, now, you're wrong.

I'm afraid that some of the people on these boards, Gwar included, actually DO know the rules better than some of the people involved with the backstage of the game.

Sorry to burst your bubble...as an example, the playtesters regularly 'forget' to play that Craters that in no way block LOS don't grant a Cover Save to a unit 3" behind them.

The bollocks we routinely see in WD should reinforce this, because, as with an email, for all you know this is just my opinion masquerading as fact. Still, I'd like to assure you that I wouldn't have posted it if I wasn't convinced it were true.

what happens if i go and reprint the entire rulebook with changes to suit me, and bring it into the store. then i can show you the rules, and claim everyone else has the wrong/faked rules and are wrong!!

How badly do you need to win your game of toy soldiers?

I agree with Kaaign. the rules query email is the closest thing we'll get to official answers, we may as well use it.

No, the BRB is the closest, tied with the Codicies, and Erratas. You seem to be missing the point a little, that the email system is unreliable. I sent in one 5 pages long and got no response. I'm not being impatient, I sent it 3 months ago.

How about adding in a suggestion that posters check the relevant rulebook/codex and the GW FAQ before posting, with a link to the GW documents?

It seems that a lot of rules questions come from people who aren't actually even aware of the GW FAQs' existence, so pointing out where to find them would potentially be helpful.

insaniak wrote:How about adding in a suggestion that posters check the relevant rulebook/codex and the GW FAQ before posting, with a link to the GW documents?

It seems that a lot of rules questions come from people who aren't actually even aware of the GW FAQs' existence, so pointing out where to find them would potentially be helpful.

Although, that SHOULD be automatic. I mean, if you know Dakka exists, how the feth do you not know about the GW site?

I want to see a spoofed FAQ just for a chuckle. Also any instruction how to do it pls PM me.



G

Kaaihn wrote:

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.

Green Blow Fly wrote:I want to see a spoofed FAQ just for a chuckle.

Ask and ye shall receive

The newest Rulebook FAQ contains valuable extra errata which we shall all be forced to adopt, I'm afraid

(This is a bit rushed, but you get the idea)

Nice, although I was hoping for a more elaborate change.

Elessar wrote:Nice, although I was hoping for a more elaborate change.

I thought obvious would get the point across quicker

Elessar wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:Gwar!, you, myself, and everyone else on all these boards don't know the game better than the developers. When the developers (or their assigned representatives) give an answer, it's pretty arrogant and silly to ignore it because you think you know better. At least in my opinion.

Ah. See, now, you're wrong.

I'm afraid that some of the people on these boards, Gwar included, actually DO know the rules better than some of the people involved with the backstage of the game.

Sorry to burst your bubble...as an example, the playtesters regularly 'forget' to play that Craters that in no way block LOS don't grant a Cover Save to a unit 3" behind them.

The bollocks we routinely see in WD should reinforce this, because, as with an email, for all you know this is just my opinion masquerading as fact. Still, I'd like to assure you that I wouldn't have posted it if I wasn't convinced it were true.

Your looking at it from the wrong perspective I think. No one here has specific knowledge of how the rules are meant to work. All we have are logical deductions. The fact that different people come to two different logical conclusions about the same point means we can't know the rules as well as the writer, since he knows which conclusion is accurate.

I don't expect even the authors to have the sheer amount of material covered in 40K perfectly memorized. I expect them to understand the core functions so they can accurately answer any question posed.

No one here, including Gwar! (who also gets things wrong occasionally like everyone else), has those insights with any proof of certainty. Hence why I say it's ridiculous to believe you know better. When we are given an avenue into answers from the people that do have these insights, we should be using them.

Elessar wrote:Although, that SHOULD be automatic.

It should be, but it isn't. Which is why I thought that suggesting it in the forum guidelines might help nudge people in the right direction.

I mean, if you know Dakka exists, how the feth do you not know about the GW site?

It's not really a case of not knowing the GW site exists, more a case of people not having spent enough time wandering around on it to have found where the FAQs are buried.

insaniak wrote:

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...

In my opinion, for clarity, the posts in YMDC should have tags like {RAW} so that you know its a RAW, and RAW only discussion; and {HDYP} so you know its a 'how do you play' discussion. That way, the RAW folks don't need to bother with the HDYP threads, and the RAI crowd don't have to bother with RAW threads.

Wasn't there a system for arguing RAW already being used by YMDC before the last switch, something with: premise, premise 2, something, conclusion? And the only discussion was to argue those points? Or am I completely mis-remembering?

I have noticed quite a few questions recently that have to do with people trying to find urgent answers because they don't have their codex with them, and sometimes just because they don't want to spend the time looking it up for themselves. Should these threads be disallowed? I know YMDC is commonly for weird issues with the rules, but do these types of threads have their place? I know that if there was a chat function people could get short questions answered easily, but that's probably too much to ask. Suffice to say I get frustrated when someone who has the codex right in front of them posts a thread up wanting a quick answer to a rule problem simply because they are too lazy to deal with it themselves.

Cruentus wrote:In my opinion, for clarity, the posts in YMDC should have tags like {RAW} so that you know its a RAW, and RAW only discussion; and {HDYP} so you know its a 'how do you play' discussion. That way, the RAW folks don't need to bother with the HDYP threads, and the RAI crowd don't have to bother with RAW threads.

The problem with that is that threads quite often wind up discussing both... for example where we start out discussing the RAW, and go from there into discussing how to actually play it in cases where the RAW is a little odd.

Kaaihn wrote:
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.

But what's the point?

I have an email from them that says Telion confers Stealth on his squad.
"In our opinion, Sgt Telion's Stealth rule applies to the entire squad. Keep in mind this is not official, but our opinion as veteran hobbyist. We will forward the question along to be considered for a FAQ."

I have another email dated approx a month later that says Telion does not confer Stealth on his squad.
"Q. Does Telion give his unit stealth?
A.Officially, no. But this could change in a FAQ, as it seems kinda useless otherwise.

When I queried this:
Sorry about that. We had made a ruling, then had further discussion and changed our mind. The answers is: No, he does not grant his squad the scout USR. Again, this may change with a future FAQ.

John does a pretty good job of answering people's questions quickly but he's no better at interpreting the tricky questions than many of the people on here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:

Cruentus wrote:In my opinion, for clarity, the posts in YMDC should have tags like {RAW} so that you know its a RAW, and RAW only discussion; and {HDYP} so you know its a 'how do you play' discussion. That way, the RAW folks don't need to bother with the HDYP threads, and the RAI crowd don't have to bother with RAW threads.

The problem with that is that threads quite often wind up discussing both... for example where we start out discussing the RAW, and go from there into discussing how to actually play it in cases where the RAW is a little odd.

Exactly - these are the threads most likely to become contentious (apart from the ones where someone's wrong and just refuses to listen) as there's no right answer at the end. What it needs at that point is to be locked and have a little executive summary added (e.g. "Conclusion - RAW is vague. Play as xxx, yyy or zzz)

Scott-S6 wrote:But what's the point?

I have an email from them that says Telion confers Stealth on his squad.
"In our opinion, Sgt Telion's Stealth rule applies to the entire squad. Keep in mind this is not official, but our opinion as veteran hobbyist. We will forward the question along to be considered for a FAQ."

I have another email dated approx a month later that says Telion does not confer Stealth on his squad.
"Q. Does Telion give his unit stealth?
A.Officially, no. But this could change in a FAQ, as it seems kinda useless otherwise.

When I queried this:
Sorry about that. We had made a ruling, then had further discussion and changed our mind. The answers is: No, he does not grant his squad the scout USR. Again, this may change with a future FAQ.

John does a pretty good job of answering people's questions quickly but he's no better at interpreting the tricky questions than many of the people on here.

Omg, Inconsistencies? NEVAR!

Scott-S6 wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:
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.

But what's the point?

I have an email from them that says Telion confers Stealth on his squad.
"In our opinion, Sgt Telion's Stealth rule applies to the entire squad. Keep in mind this is not official, but our opinion as veteran hobbyist. We will forward the question along to be considered for a FAQ."

I have another email dated approx a month later that says Telion does not confer Stealth on his squad.
"Q. Does Telion give his unit stealth?
A.Officially, no. But this could change in a FAQ, as it seems kinda useless otherwise.

When I queried this:
Sorry about that. We had made a ruling, then had further discussion and changed our mind. The answers is: No, he does not grant his squad the scout USR. Again, this may change with a future FAQ.

John does a pretty good job of answering people's questions quickly but he's no better at interpreting the tricky questions than many of the people on here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:

Cruentus wrote:In my opinion, for clarity, the posts in YMDC should have tags like {RAW} so that you know its a RAW, and RAW only discussion; and {HDYP} so you know its a 'how do you play' discussion. That way, the RAW folks don't need to bother with the HDYP threads, and the RAI crowd don't have to bother with RAW threads.

The problem with that is that threads quite often wind up discussing both... for example where we start out discussing the RAW, and go from there into discussing how to actually play it in cases where the RAW is a little odd.

Exactly - these are the threads most likely to become contentious (apart from the ones where someone's wrong and just refuses to listen) as there's no right answer at the end. What it needs at that point is to be locked and have a little executive summary added (e.g. "Conclusion - RAW is vague. Play as xxx, yyy or zzz)

Ah i can explain this ...

Telion does not confer Stealth ... but Stealth effects every model in the unit and gives them +1 to their cover save.

... difference is if Telion confer Stealth then every one would have the stealth rule. Unless this also comes with a "till he dies" the squad would never lose stealth. On the other hand if only he has stealth and dies then the unit no long has any one with the stealth rule so no longer gets +1 to their cover save. Simples

======================

Now why is it no one like, dictionary definitions? I agree that you can't just whip them out, but you can't assume that every one knows the meaning of a word. When they don't and it is not give a meaning in the any of the rules where else but the dictionary can you turn for a definition of its meaning? Take wield ... myself and gwar got in a massive debate about how many weapons can Marneus Calgar wield. If used right a dictionary definition can be a useful tool. Like all things it can be miss used.

In my opinion, there's only one critical thing I would add to this discussion

*cough*

IT NEEDS MORE COWBELL

Cruentus wrote:Wasn't there a system for arguing RAW already being used by YMDC before the last switch, something with: premise, premise 2, something, conclusion? And the only discussion was to argue those points? Or am I completely mis-remembering?

Yeah, Centurian99 posted a great piece on how to argue in YMDC. I've actually already asked about this, but no one seems to have a copy anymore. I think it died with the NukeDotNet board.

Since this whole thing is (again) devolving into an argument (this time about emails and FAQs) I'm locking the thread.