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.

Zarius wrote:
His response was specifically with reference to MY comment about the fact that Smurf has sent an email to the GW folks asking for clarification, and subsequent question about the army builders. So, stop taking things out of context.

What? He was talking about the list building softwares...
How did I take that out of context?...
Do you even know what context means...

Zarius wrote:
And, frequently, the coders DON'T know what the writers intended, or have access to them to ask.

It's an official GW release...
Can you point me to how you found out that information...

HondaDaBest wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
The iPad version is the one released by GW. That doesn't mean the programmers know what the rules writers had in mind when they wrote the software and its conditions, or even if they ran the results by the paper developers before releasing them.

If that is the way to interpret things officially released by GW...

Can't you apply that logic to literally every single thing in the game?
The Codex writers don't know exactly....
The BRB writers don't know exactly....
The WD people don't know exactly...
etc, etc, etc,

How can we ever do anything with that way of thinking?

Ummm... Way to take it out of context.

Still, most of those rules writers sure don't seem to know what they are writing half the time.

As for WD... They would have a better rep if they didn't make a host of rules mistakes like not Snap Firing a Heavy Weapon carried by an Infantry model that had just disembarked...

Charistoph wrote:
Ummm... Way to take it out of context.

Still, most of those rules writers sure don't seem to know what they are writing half the time.

As for WD... They would have a better rep if they didn't make a host of rules mistakes like not Snap Firing a Heavy Weapon carried by an Infantry model that had just disembarked...

Wait what? I'm confused now... You weren't talking about the list building software by GW?

In that case, I'm sorry. I misunderstood you.

Charistoph wrote:
The iPad version is the one released by GW. That doesn't mean the programmers know what the rules writers had in mind when they wrote the software and its conditions, or even if they ran the results by the paper developers before releasing them.

If the iPad version is an official GW release, I think we have to assume that they are half-way competent and ran it by the paper developers.
But who even knows with this game anymore.

HondaDaBest wrote:

Wait what? I'm confused now... You weren't talking about the list building software by GW?

In that case, I'm sorry. I misunderstood you.

I was talking about the list building software provided by GW, yes. I am just saying we don't have much information on the development process. If you could provide a link on it or some other reference to actually define it, that would be great.

But considering GW's track record in communicating intents and purposes between even White Dwarf and the Citadel developers, I do not have high confidence that the software developers were any more fully in the loop.

Charistoph wrote:
I was talking about the list building software provided by GW, yes. I am just saying we don't have much information on the development process. If you could provide a link on it or some other reference to actually define it, that would be great.

But considering GW's track record in communicating intents and purposes between even White Dwarf and the Citadel developers, I do not have high confidence that the software developers were any more fully in the loop.

If it's an official GW release, shouldn't the default opinion be that they did some internal communication?
I don't have a link that defines the process. It is just a logical step that you can take because it was released by GW...
You can logically assume that if a company has released a product, it has gone through internal testing.
If you wish to say otherwise, like you said, wouldn't we need a link?

Rasko wrote:
If the iPad version is an official GW release, I think we have to assume that they are half-way competent and ran it by the paper developers.
But who even knows with this game anymore.

Exactly. If it's an official release, we have to assume that they did some kind of internal communication absent any information.
That is a basic, logical step that someone can make. If anyone has a link that says otherwise, I would love to see it...

HondaDaBest wrote:
If it's an official GW release, shouldn't the default opinion be that they are did some internal communication?
I don't have a link that defines the process. It is just a logical step that you can take because it was released by GW...
You can logically assume that if a company has released a product, it has gone through internal testing.
If you wish to say otherwise, like you said, wouldn't we need a link?

As I said, the track record for GW doing so has been poor. How many White Dwarf battle reports are riddled with very common mistakes? How often is Forgeworld left hanging with changes in the system as if they didn't know was coming?

I'm not saying that the iPad army builder actually is incorrect or inaccurate. I'm just trying to help people remember that GW has little reason to incur absolute faith in this product like the printed or eCodices.

Charistoph wrote:

HondaDaBest wrote:

Wait what? I'm confused now... You weren't talking about the list building software by GW?

In that case, I'm sorry. I misunderstood you.

I was talking about the list building software provided by GW, yes. I am just saying we don't have much information on the development process. If you could provide a link on it or some other reference to actually define it, that would be great.

But considering GW's track record in communicating intents and purposes between even White Dwarf and the Citadel developers, I do not have high confidence that the software developers were any more fully in the loop.

All you need to know is if it's copyrighted or officially endorsed by GW. If it's their official list building software, it's their official list building software. It can settle how GW officially builds lists.

HondaDaBest wrote:

Zarius wrote:
His response was specifically with reference to MY comment about the fact that Smurf has sent an email to the GW folks asking for clarification, and subsequent question about the army builders. So, stop taking things out of context.

What? He was talking about the list building softwares...
How did I take that out of context?...
Do you even know what context means...

Zarius wrote:
And, frequently, the coders DON'T know what the writers intended, or have access to them to ask.

It's an official GW release...
Can you point me to how you found out that information...

You took it out of context because you didn't factor in the original question.

And I know that because I've DONE programming. And network design. And building design. And as much as it handicaps the designer, sometimes all you have to go off of is what a third party says. or "here's a manual, write a program that does <barfity snarf mcpoodle crap>. All you have is the manual, because the guys that wrote it are on vacation for the next two months. It's due in three weeks. Have fun!"

The fact that it was written by a GW employee doesn't mean that the employee that wrote it has any clue what the person that wrote it originally was thinking when they wrote it. They COULD have meant for gear to carry over, except as specifically notated. They COULD have meant to replace the model completely. They could have meant to shove it in your hind quarters and them barf if out, and you get what ever comes back out. The fact of the matter is that we don't KNOW. Unless you can show me an author tag on the program that shows that it was actually written by the same authors that wrote the manuals, we can't assume that they had access to the writers of the manuals.

And, Col, that logic works well until you consider other instances of someone writing something based off of what someone else wrote, and misinterpreting it. Most of the time, the marketing/development department doesn't bother checking it. And, for all we know, nobody even thought to ASK the question when they were writing it. As has been pointed out, BOTH sides of the discussion are currently HYWPI, with no definitive written backing. No matter what anyone wants to say, the word "upgrade" does NOT inherently require a replacement. And even where the word upgrade does require replacing something, it doesn't require a whole object replacement at any point in time. So, even if it seems to be the most logical course, it isn't necessarily accurate. These are, after all, the guys that tend to build their model selection list more geared towards the collectors than the players, even though the players spend more money. Logic isn't exactly their strong suit.

No. A space wolf scout upgraded to a wolf guard pack leader cannot have a sniper rifle. If you could do that, then you could put a jump pack on a captain then give him terminator armour.

Apparently, I sent it to the wrong fething email.

I'll copypasta the stock email.

Greetings mortal subject of the Emperor!

Due to the vast complexities of commands issued by our Ministorum Regularis operatives (the Rules Team) mere troopers such as ourselves are not permitted to respond to queries such as this, as detailed in 'Rules, Regulations, Conduct Proper, Codes, Practices, and Laws of the Great and Magnificent Astra Militarum of Humanity'

Any queries regarding your commands and regulations should be forwarded to the proper authorities for review and correction where necessary. Communiques should be forwarded to the below address:
gamefaqs@gwplc.com
Note:Battlefield conditions can often cause communications to become disrupted. Should this occur, DO NOT PANIC, continue as normal until normal communication resumes.

Emperor Protects!

Regards

So I have to send it to a different email that I don't think was listed.

Bastards.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
At least I think it may have been stock, if it wasn't then bloody hell good for you

EDIT: I made CERTAIN I referenced that it was the wulfen edition

Zarius wrote:

HondaDaBest wrote:

Zarius wrote:
His response was specifically with reference to MY comment about the fact that Smurf has sent an email to the GW folks asking for clarification, and subsequent question about the army builders. So, stop taking things out of context.

What? He was talking about the list building softwares...
How did I take that out of context?...
Do you even know what context means...

Zarius wrote:
And, frequently, the coders DON'T know what the writers intended, or have access to them to ask.

It's an official GW release...
Can you point me to how you found out that information...

You took it out of context because you didn't factor in the original question.

And I know that because I've DONE programming. And network design. And building design. And as much as it handicaps the designer, sometimes all you have to go off of is what a third party says. or "here's a manual, write a program that does <barfity snarf mcpoodle crap>. All you have is the manual, because the guys that wrote it are on vacation for the next two months. It's due in three weeks. Have fun!"

The fact that it was written by a GW employee doesn't mean that the employee that wrote it has any clue what the person that wrote it originally was thinking when they wrote it. They COULD have meant for gear to carry over, except as specifically notated. They COULD have meant to replace the model completely. They could have meant to shove it in your hind quarters and them barf if out, and you get what ever comes back out. The fact of the matter is that we don't KNOW. Unless you can show me an author tag on the program that shows that it was actually written by the same authors that wrote the manuals, we can't assume that they had access to the writers of the manuals.

And, Col, that logic works well until you consider other instances of someone writing something based off of what someone else wrote, and misinterpreting it. Most of the time, the marketing/development department doesn't bother checking it. And, for all we know, nobody even thought to ASK the question when they were writing it. As has been pointed out, BOTH sides of the discussion are currently HYWPI, with no definitive written backing. No matter what anyone wants to say, the word "upgrade" does NOT inherently require a replacement. And even where the word upgrade does require replacing something, it doesn't require a whole object replacement at any point in time. So, even if it seems to be the most logical course, it isn't necessarily accurate. These are, after all, the guys that tend to build their model selection list more geared towards the collectors than the players, even though the players spend more money. Logic isn't exactly their strong suit.

If GW copyrights or officially endorses it, the army building program that is integrated into the iPad manual is an official source of GW information on that particular product. GW literally empowered the program to show how lists are built with the SW codex.

What are you worried about anyway? If you are so sure and it's so obvious then they obviously built the program to follow your read of the rule.

col_impact wrote:

Zarius wrote:

HondaDaBest wrote:

Zarius wrote:
His response was specifically with reference to MY comment about the fact that Smurf has sent an email to the GW folks asking for clarification, and subsequent question about the army builders. So, stop taking things out of context.

What? He was talking about the list building softwares...
How did I take that out of context?...
Do you even know what context means...

Zarius wrote:
And, frequently, the coders DON'T know what the writers intended, or have access to them to ask.

It's an official GW release...
Can you point me to how you found out that information...

You took it out of context because you didn't factor in the original question.

And I know that because I've DONE programming. And network design. And building design. And as much as it handicaps the designer, sometimes all you have to go off of is what a third party says. or "here's a manual, write a program that does <barfity snarf mcpoodle crap>. All you have is the manual, because the guys that wrote it are on vacation for the next two months. It's due in three weeks. Have fun!"

The fact that it was written by a GW employee doesn't mean that the employee that wrote it has any clue what the person that wrote it originally was thinking when they wrote it. They COULD have meant for gear to carry over, except as specifically notated. They COULD have meant to replace the model completely. They could have meant to shove it in your hind quarters and them barf if out, and you get what ever comes back out. The fact of the matter is that we don't KNOW. Unless you can show me an author tag on the program that shows that it was actually written by the same authors that wrote the manuals, we can't assume that they had access to the writers of the manuals.

And, Col, that logic works well until you consider other instances of someone writing something based off of what someone else wrote, and misinterpreting it. Most of the time, the marketing/development department doesn't bother checking it. And, for all we know, nobody even thought to ASK the question when they were writing it. As has been pointed out, BOTH sides of the discussion are currently HYWPI, with no definitive written backing. No matter what anyone wants to say, the word "upgrade" does NOT inherently require a replacement. And even where the word upgrade does require replacing something, it doesn't require a whole object replacement at any point in time. So, even if it seems to be the most logical course, it isn't necessarily accurate. These are, after all, the guys that tend to build their model selection list more geared towards the collectors than the players, even though the players spend more money. Logic isn't exactly their strong suit.

If GW copyrights or officially endorses it, the army building program that is integrated into the iPad manual is an official source of GW information on that particular product. GW literally empowered the program to show how lists are built with the SW codex.

What are you worried about anyway? If you are so sure and it's so obvious then they obviously built the program to follow your read of the rule.

I second Zarius. I've done both programming and design work and there tends to be a lot of guessing and vague interpretation with the end result hopefully being acceptable to whoever is paying the bills.

Also, this is sort of like in the academic world. There is a key difference between primary and secondary sources. The written Codex text is a primary source. The little army building widget is a secondary source as it's based off the primary source. Secondary sources are rarely 100% reliable as they almost always include an element of human interpretation.

Thinking that any secondary source is 100% reliable comes off as a little naive. Not necessarily in a bad way, but naive nonetheless.

 Kriswall wrote:


I second Zarius. I've done both programming and design work and there tends to be a lot of guessing and vague interpretation with the end result hopefully being acceptable to whoever is paying the bills.

Also, this is sort of like in the academic world. There is a key difference between primary and secondary sources. The written Codex text is a primary source. The little army building widget is a secondary source as it's based off the primary source. Secondary sources are rarely 100% reliable as they almost always include an element of human interpretation.

Thinking that any secondary source is 100% reliable comes off as a little naive. Not necessarily in a bad way, but naive nonetheless.

Your personal experience is not relevant. If the program is copyright GW or officially endorsed then it's an officially sanctioned source of information on the product.

So unless you can show me how your personal experience has been copyrighted by GW, I will take the official list builder program over your personal experience.



What are you worried about anyway? If you are so sure and it's so obvious then they obviously built the program to follow your read of the rule.

col_impact wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:


I second Zarius. I've done both programming and design work and there tends to be a lot of guessing and vague interpretation with the end result hopefully being acceptable to whoever is paying the bills.

Also, this is sort of like in the academic world. There is a key difference between primary and secondary sources. The written Codex text is a primary source. The little army building widget is a secondary source as it's based off the primary source. Secondary sources are rarely 100% reliable as they almost always include an element of human interpretation.

Thinking that any secondary source is 100% reliable comes off as a little naive. Not necessarily in a bad way, but naive nonetheless.

Your personal experience is not relevant. If the program is copyright GW or officially endorsed then it's an officially sanctioned source of information on the product.

So unless you can show me how your personal experience has been copyrighted by GW, I will take the official list builder program over your personal experience.



What are you worried about anyway? If you are so sure and it's so obvious then they obviously built the program to follow your read of the rule.

Yeah, you take the unwavering belief that the programmers got everything right and have fun. I'll take my 30 years of experience and take a more pragmatic approach. I'll trust what the authors wrote and not some random programmer who interpreted what the authors wrote.

I'm not actually worried about anything. I have no real attachment to anything that happens in 99.9% of these threads. Mostly just bored at work. I was really just pointing out that there is a frequent "loss in translation" when a programmer takes something and builds a tool.

Kind of got a kick out of your asking if GW has copyrighted my personal experience. I worked for GW for a time and was trained specifically on how to play Warhammer 40k and arbitrate rules issues when they arose. They copyrighted the training materials, so in a way, yeah... they did copyright my personal experience as relates to playing this game and resolving rules conflicts.

Has GW copyrighted yours?

 Kriswall wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:


I second Zarius. I've done both programming and design work and there tends to be a lot of guessing and vague interpretation with the end result hopefully being acceptable to whoever is paying the bills.

Also, this is sort of like in the academic world. There is a key difference between primary and secondary sources. The written Codex text is a primary source. The little army building widget is a secondary source as it's based off the primary source. Secondary sources are rarely 100% reliable as they almost always include an element of human interpretation.

Thinking that any secondary source is 100% reliable comes off as a little naive. Not necessarily in a bad way, but naive nonetheless.

Your personal experience is not relevant. If the program is copyright GW or officially endorsed then it's an officially sanctioned source of information on the product.

So unless you can show me how your personal experience has been copyrighted by GW, I will take the official list builder program over your personal experience.



What are you worried about anyway? If you are so sure and it's so obvious then they obviously built the program to follow your read of the rule.

Yeah, you take the unwavering belief that the programmers got everything right and have fun. I'll take my 30 years of experience and take a more pragmatic approach. I'll trust what the authors wrote and not some random programmer who interpreted what the authors wrote.

I'm not actually worried about anything. I have no real attachment to anything that happens in 99.9% of these threads. Mostly just bored at work. I was really just pointing out that there is a frequent "loss in translation" when a programmer takes something and builds a tool.

Kind of got a kick out of your asking if GW has copyrighted my personal experience. I worked for GW for a time and was trained specifically on how to play Warhammer 40k and arbitrate rules issues when they arose. They copyrighted the training materials, so in a way, yeah... they did copyright my personal experience as relates to playing this game and resolving rules conflicts.

Has GW copyrighted yours?

Cool. Good to know we can consider you a resource for settling 2nd edition disputes.

col_impact wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:


I second Zarius. I've done both programming and design work and there tends to be a lot of guessing and vague interpretation with the end result hopefully being acceptable to whoever is paying the bills.

Also, this is sort of like in the academic world. There is a key difference between primary and secondary sources. The written Codex text is a primary source. The little army building widget is a secondary source as it's based off the primary source. Secondary sources are rarely 100% reliable as they almost always include an element of human interpretation.

Thinking that any secondary source is 100% reliable comes off as a little naive. Not necessarily in a bad way, but naive nonetheless.

Your personal experience is not relevant. If the program is copyright GW or officially endorsed then it's an officially sanctioned source of information on the product.

So unless you can show me how your personal experience has been copyrighted by GW, I will take the official list builder program over your personal experience.



What are you worried about anyway? If you are so sure and it's so obvious then they obviously built the program to follow your read of the rule.

Yeah, you take the unwavering belief that the programmers got everything right and have fun. I'll take my 30 years of experience and take a more pragmatic approach. I'll trust what the authors wrote and not some random programmer who interpreted what the authors wrote.

I'm not actually worried about anything. I have no real attachment to anything that happens in 99.9% of these threads. Mostly just bored at work. I was really just pointing out that there is a frequent "loss in translation" when a programmer takes something and builds a tool.

Kind of got a kick out of your asking if GW has copyrighted my personal experience. I worked for GW for a time and was trained specifically on how to play Warhammer 40k and arbitrate rules issues when they arose. They copyrighted the training materials, so in a way, yeah... they did copyright my personal experience as relates to playing this game and resolving rules conflicts.

Has GW copyrighted yours?

Cool. Good to know we can consider you a resource for settling 2nd edition disputes.

Looks like someone doesn't understand the concept of humor. I'd post the dictionary definition, but you'd probably just tell me to ignore the dictionary and use only the BRB to communicate with you.

You want to know what the official training would have to say on something like this debate? I'll tell you. The correct answer is whichever one makes the two people playing want to play another game after the one they're playing now. That goes for tournaments, too. There is a reason ITC is making flat out rules changes right now. They want people to keep playing. Ultimately, it makes little to no difference whether or not you can get some random dude on the internet to admit that your interpretation peen is longer than his. If allowing a Wolf Guard Pack Leader to have a Sniper Rifle means that both players are more likely to play a second game than not allowing it, it's the correct decision.

YMDC used to be noobies asking relatively easy beginner questions and veterans trying to figure out how a rule works for their next competitive event. Now that both the causal players and the tournament players are making flat out rules changes to keep people playing, the actual RaW makes little to no difference. HIWPI is so much more important to RaW because it's the only thing that matters in the real world.

So again, enjoy your bickering. I said a couple of posts into this thread that there wouldn't be a consensus. The rules are written too poorly. There is inherent ambiguity all over the place, including here.

col_impact wrote:
Your personal experience is not relevant. If the program is copyright GW or officially endorsed then it's an officially sanctioned source of information on the product.

So unless you can show me how your personal experience has been copyrighted by GW, I will take the official list builder program over your personal experience.

What are you worried about anyway? If you are so sure and it's so obvious then they obviously built the program to follow your read of the rule.

White Dwarf is copyrighted and officially endorsed by Games Workshop. Should we use some of those Battle Reports as the rules standards to settle disputes then?

Personal experience with GW products is quite relevant in this case, as is adding the context provided by other experience in the same field of operations.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Your personal experience is not relevant. If the program is copyright GW or officially endorsed then it's an officially sanctioned source of information on the product.

So unless you can show me how your personal experience has been copyrighted by GW, I will take the official list builder program over your personal experience.

What are you worried about anyway? If you are so sure and it's so obvious then they obviously built the program to follow your read of the rule.

White Dwarf is copyrighted and officially endorsed by Games Workshop. Should we use some of those Battle Reports as the rules standards to settle disputes then?

Personal experience with GW products is quite relevant in this case, as is adding the context provided by other experience in the same field of operations.

So are you saying I can't use Formations published in and exclusive to WD?

So the Mephrit Dynasty Resurgence Decurion is not legal to use in 40k?

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Your personal experience is not relevant. If the program is copyright GW or officially endorsed then it's an officially sanctioned source of information on the product.

So unless you can show me how your personal experience has been copyrighted by GW, I will take the official list builder program over your personal experience.

What are you worried about anyway? If you are so sure and it's so obvious then they obviously built the program to follow your read of the rule.

White Dwarf is copyrighted and officially endorsed by Games Workshop. Should we use some of those Battle Reports as the rules standards to settle disputes then?

Personal experience with GW products is quite relevant in this case, as is adding the context provided by other experience in the same field of operations.

So are you saying I can't use Formations published in and exclusive to WD?

So the Mephrit Dynasty Resurgence Decurion is not legal to use in 40k?

That is not in context at all with what I am saying. I did not state anything regarding the datasheets on the icodex was untrustworthy, just their interpretations of the datasheets are questionable due to historical factors. There is a difference.

Much like the difference between questioning a quote and questioning the interpretation of a quote. I am not questioning that it states, "One Wolf Scout may be upgraded to a Wolf Guard Pack Leader". I am questioning how they interpret how that upgrade operates, i.e. ignoring all other additions and replacements made before upgrading from one model to another. (just an example, not representing my view on the discussion one way or another).

Charistoph wrote:

That is not in context at all with what I am saying. I did not state anything regarding the datasheets on the icodex was untrustworthy, just their interpretations of the datasheets are questionable due to historical factors. There is a difference.

Much like the difference between questioning a quote and questioning the interpretation of a quote. I am not questioning that it states, "One Wolf Scout may be upgraded to a Wolf Guard Pack Leader". I am questioning how they interpret how that upgrade operates, i.e. ignoring all other additions and replacements made before upgrading from one model to another. (just an example, not representing my view on the discussion one way or another).

If the program is officially endorsed as a list builder, it's officially endorsed as a list builder. Real straightforward.

col_impact wrote:
If the program is officially endorsed as a list builder, it's officially endorsed as a list builder. Real straightforward.

So we can use the Battle Reports on White Dwarf as official rules interpretations, correct?

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
If the program is officially endorsed as a list builder, it's officially endorsed as a list builder. Real straightforward.

So we can use the Battle Reports on White Dwarf as official rules interpretations, correct?

Are Battle Reports officially endorsed as rule sources? Feel free to cite the endorsement for Battle Reports.

HEY HEY HEY! You remember all of those times you guys literally mocked me and insulted me for using real world examples and logic in a game? Well, apparently you guys actually need to read the manual better. Context: I was looking up the rules in the BRB for vehicular manslauger... erm... combat. Reference point is when the manual is referring to units firing at opposing vehicles, and how all models in the unit have to fire on the same enemy unit (vehicle in this particular reference), but the LoS or shooting distance might prevent all members of the squad from doing so.

"As the whole unit must fire at the same target, this often means that some of their weapons can’t damage the target vehicle, so we assume that the other members of the squad are providing covering fire, bringing forward ammunition for heavy weapons or simply keeping their heads down."

So, my question here is why can THEY use RL examples and logic, but I can't? I mean, I realize it's a game, yes, and the rules are meant to simplify things, but RL logic is RL logic, and the BRB gives precedence for using it.

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
If the program is officially endorsed as a list builder, it's officially endorsed as a list builder. Real straightforward.

So we can use the Battle Reports on White Dwarf as official rules interpretations, correct?

Are Battle Reports officially endorsed as rule sources? Feel free to cite the endorsement for Battle Reports.

If the Battle Reports are officially endorsed as Battle Reports, it's officially endorsed as Battle Reports (With all the rules that go with it). Real straightforward.

If the White Dwarf is copyright GW or officially endorsed then it's an officially sanctioned source of information on the product...

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
If the program is officially endorsed as a list builder, it's officially endorsed as a list builder. Real straightforward.

So we can use the Battle Reports on White Dwarf as official rules interpretations, correct?

Are Battle Reports officially endorsed as rule sources? Feel free to cite the endorsement for Battle Reports.

Citation: Your assumption that two different things created by two different people, BOTH endorsed by the same group, are both carte blanche correct every single time. That's like assuming that every single statement in the bible is individually true.

 DeathReaper wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
If the program is officially endorsed as a list builder, it's officially endorsed as a list builder. Real straightforward.

So we can use the Battle Reports on White Dwarf as official rules interpretations, correct?

Are Battle Reports officially endorsed as rule sources? Feel free to cite the endorsement for Battle Reports.

If the Battle Reports are officially endorsed as Battle Reports, it's officially endorsed as Battle Reports (With all the rules that go with it). Real straightforward.

If the White Dwarf is copyright GW or officially endorsed then it's an officially sanctioned source of information on the product...

Exactly. Battle Reports include rules interpretations. They have to as they are playing the game using the same rules we discuss here.

And White Dwarf is as fully copyrighted and endorsed by GW as the icodex's army builder.

This is called being consistent with your standards, col_impact.

Guess that means you think Pathfinders disembarking from their Devilfish can fire their Markerlights without any further ramifications like Snap Fire. (Yes, this actually happened in a WD Battle Report).

Still, all in all, I would put a little more faith in icodex army builders than THE Army Builder or Battle Scribe, GW just has given me no reason to trust it any more than their White Dwarf.

Code gets put in incorrectly, rules get interpreted differently (I can cite you 12 pages of examples), etc. And English isn't a precise language, open for LOTS of interpretations.

Charistoph wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
If the program is officially endorsed as a list builder, it's officially endorsed as a list builder. Real straightforward.

So we can use the Battle Reports on White Dwarf as official rules interpretations, correct?

Are Battle Reports officially endorsed as rule sources? Feel free to cite the endorsement for Battle Reports.

If the Battle Reports are officially endorsed as Battle Reports, it's officially endorsed as Battle Reports (With all the rules that go with it). Real straightforward.

If the White Dwarf is copyright GW or officially endorsed then it's an officially sanctioned source of information on the product...

Exactly. Battle Reports include rules interpretations. They have to as they are playing the game using the same rules we discuss here.

And White Dwarf is as fully copyrighted and endorsed by GW as the icodex's army builder.

This is called being consistent with your standards, col_impact.

Guess that means you think Pathfinders disembarking from their Devilfish can fire their Markerlights without any further ramifications like Snap Fire. (Yes, this actually happened in a WD Battle Report).

Still, all in all, I would put a little more faith in icodex army builders than THE Army Builder or Battle Scribe, GW just has given me no reason to trust it any more than their White Dwarf.

The WD is express about its permission when you can include an exclusive WD Formation or Cities of Death tactical cards into your game of 40k.

If the WD said you could include the Battle Report in your game of 40k as a rule source or some other fashion then that would be fine. No problem with me if if actually permitted it.

However, there is no such permission.

col_impact wrote:

The WD is express about its permission when you can include an exclusive WD Formation or Cities of Death tactical cards into your game of 40k.

If the WD said you could include the Battle Report in your game of 40k as a rule source or some other fashion then that would be fine. No problem with me if if actually permitted it.

However, there is no such permission.

Then I guess you're good with me saying that a device created by the SAME copyright holders for CONVENIENCE isn't a reliable source, either, since ALL of the builders say to double check the manual.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Which means that we're back to the BRB and codex. And since the BRB actually DOES use RL logic and examples to explain why things happen, guess what? I get to start using them again, JUST to annoy you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just as a side note, the English major that sits next to me at work gives a "mostly confirmation." She doesn't play, but I should think that someone that went to school for a degree in English qualifies.