Switch Theme:

Can we alter the YMDC tenets?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in fi
Courageous Space Marine Captain







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

It seems to be outdated. These days GW communicates via Facebook. We now have a surreal situation where some people refuse to accept clarification in the Facebook, even though GW has said that said clarification have been approved by the designers.

And even beyond this specific issue, I think there should be discussion about what exactly is the purpose of said subforum. Certain posters seem to think that it is their personal battleground for rules-lawyering duels, whilst I personally feel it should be place where plaeyers can seek help on how to resolve rules issues in order to actually game. For latter purpose even unofficial clarifications may be helpful. Even beyond this specific Facebook post mentioned earlier (which is made in cooperation with the designers) the FB people often provide answers to rules issues. These may not be 'official' but they usually tend to be correct. When they really are unsure, they usually just say: 'we froward this question to the designers for future FAQ' or something like that. However, whenever such an answer is brought up, some people tend to bring up the sacred YMDC tenets and how they have been broken. I really do not think this is helpful.

I feel that in their current form the tenets hinder rather than help the subforum's function as a helpful asset to the players.



   
Made in us
Lieutenant General





Florence, KY

From the 'About' section of the Warhamer 40,000 Facebook page:

And a quick note on rules questions - we can’t give you official answers. We’re not the Games Designers, they’re locked up in the studio. We might be able to give you some general advice or point you in the right direction but better to try and work it out with your gaming buddies.

99.99% of the communication on the Facebook page is not official when it comes to rules. There's no need to change the Tenets for the .01% that is an exception to the above statement.

'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
 
   
Made in fi
Courageous Space Marine Captain






 Ghaz wrote:
From the 'About' section of the Warhamer 40,000 Facebook page:

And a quick note on rules questions - we can’t give you official answers. We’re not the Games Designers, they’re locked up in the studio. We might be able to give you some general advice or point you in the right direction but better to try and work it out with your gaming buddies.

99.99% of the communication on the Facebook page is not official when it comes to rules. There's no need to change the Tenets for the .01% that is an exception to the above statement.

I know it says that. To reiterate my two points:

1) Some answers actually are directly from the designers, and when they are, they actually say it, so we don't have to guess.
2) Even the unofficial answers may be helpful to people who just want to resolve a rules problem rather than win a YMDC rules-lawyer duel.

   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

People who don't care if the answer is 'official' or not have no real reason to be getting locked in an extended argument anyway... They can simply take the answer that makes the most sense to them and move on.

The problem with allowing Facebook as a source is that it's practically impossible to verify, short of going and asking the question there yourself and hoping for the same answer... at which point, you might as well have just done that to begin with. And the answer you get is still not going to be an 'official' ruling.

Regardless of where GW chooses to disseminate rulings, if they're not easily verifiable and shareable, they're meaningless to anyone who didn't happen to be there at the time.


 
   
Made in fi
Courageous Space Marine Captain






 insaniak wrote:
People who don't care if the answer is 'official' or not have no real reason to be getting locked in an extended argument anyway... They can simply take the answer that makes the most sense to them and move on.

The problem with allowing Facebook as a source is that it's practically impossible to verify, short of going and asking the question there yourself and hoping for the same answer... at which point, you might as well have just done that to begin with. And the answer you get is still not going to be an 'official' ruling.

Regardless of where GW chooses to disseminate rulings, if they're not easily verifiable and shareable, they're meaningless to anyone who didn't happen to be there at the time.


The problem with bringing up those 'unofficial' responses is that some people just respond really hostile to it. They interpret the tenets so, that it is somehow disallowed to even bring up such sources. (Which I really don't think the tenets even say. Maybe we can have a rules-lawyering discussion about that next.)

Also, you can link to the Facebook so the answers are verifiable and visible to all. And this latest thing is really is a from the designers and pretty much everyone has seen it, so there really is no question about the authenticity. GW's stance on what are official channels no longer matches that of Dakka. This is a bit like how several people used to argue that the Designer's Commentary was not 'official' because YMDC tenets say only Rulebooks and FAQs are official and that document was not labelled as FAQ. We now have a surreal situation where rulings straight from the designers are somehow not admissible in YMDC because Dakka's definition of 'official' somehow trumps what GW actually says.

   
Made in us
[ADMIN]
President of the Mat Ward Fan Club






Los Angeles, CA


Here's the thing:

Games Workshop has set up a channel for delivering their 'official', binding (as binding as any tabletop gaming rule can actually be) rulings, that being their errata and FAQs.

ANY other method they choose to disseminate information from, regardless of who is providing that information, is not official, because of the mere fact that they absolutely do have those official channels.

Yes, information given by the games designers about a rule is absolutely helpful towards giving gamers a good idea of how that might be ruled once it gets in an official FAQ/errata, but until it actually shows up in an official FAQ/errata, then whatever the games designer says via Facebook, email, twitch, etc., is still just an opinion that may or may not be later changed.

Long ago, in the mists of time when I used to edit/write the unofficial INAT FAQ for 40k, I used to have back channel connections to GW rules writers. And I can tell you from firsthand experience that more than once I talked to a rules writer about their intent behind a murky rule and how they were going to handle said rule in their official FAQ. The rules writer told me (again, on more than one occasion) how they were 'planning' to FAQ something, and we ended up ruling that same way in the INAT FAQ. Imagine my surprise when, months later, the official GW FAQ comes out and they ruled the exact opposite way! The first time it happened I was flabbergasted. The second time it happened, I was not surprised.

The reality is, even rules writers can get something wrong or change their minds later after getting more feedback on the issue. That's why companies have official FAQs and errata. Its so there is an easy place for players to go and find the official, condoned rulings put out by the company.

Answers/rulings provided via other sources can be posted in YMDC. And in fact, it can be incredibly useful to get that information out to people because it is *likely* that GW will rule that same way when they address the issue in an official FAQ/errata. But when you post a ruling from an ancillary source, it needs to be done with the understanding that it is *not* official, and anyone posting it like it *is* an official ruling is ignoring the fact that GW does have an official channel for their rulings (and facebook, twitch, etc, is not part of that channel).

As such, I've added another sub-point to the tennents of YMDC:

2a. Rulings via GW's social media accounts, twitch streams, etc., even though often provided by the actual games designers, are still not considered official rulings by GW until they are actually published in a errata/FAQs. As such, while it is fine to bring up rulings provided this way in YMDC, it must always be couched with the understanding that these are not official, binding rulings until they actually make their way into a errata/FAQ.

But I'll let you in on a little secret:

In YMDC (and on the internet in general), you will never, ever, ever, ever convince the person you're arguing against that they are wrong. The only thing you can ever hope for is to make a salient point and know that the dozens of people READING the thread (but not posting) will see what you write, think it makes sense, and will agree with you...all without you ever hearing from them.

Posting unofficial rulings from GW's ancillary channels in YMDC can be incredibly useful towards this point, because most people recognize the value in such rulings knowing that they give a *likely* sign of how GW will rule on an issue (even though it isn't 100% until GW actually puts in a FAQ/errata).

Just post these types of things in YMDC, admit when you're doing so that you know they aren't official, drop the mic and walk away. 99% of the people reading will see the info you posted and choose to play that way because they know it will be the likely outcome anyway.


I play (click on icons to see pics): DQ:70+S++G(FAQ)M++B-I++Pw40k92/f-D+++A+++/areWD104R+T(D)DM+++
yakface's 40K rule #1: Although the rules allow you to use modeling to your advantage, how badly do you need to win your toy soldier games?
yakface's 40K rule #2: Friends don't let friends start a MEQ army.
yakface's 40K rule #3: Codex does not ALWAYS trump the rulebook, so please don't say that!
Waaagh Dakka: click the banner to learn more! 
   
Made in fi
Courageous Space Marine Captain






Thank you. I think that addition is a good clarification. Not having to argue whether I can even bring up such other sources is absolutely good enough for me.

And yes, I agree completely with you on how a public argument works.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/27 09:16:50


   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






Can we clarify the rule to require that any social media reference come with a direct link to the GW comment in question, including verification that it is a GW rules author making the statement rather than a random clueless social media person? I'm fine with using GW author commentary, but it needs to be more than a vague "GW said so on facebook".

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 Peregrine wrote:
Can we clarify the rule to require that any social media reference come with a direct link to the GW comment in question, including verification that it is a GW rules author making the statement rather than a random clueless social media person? I'm fine with using GW author commentary, but it needs to be more than a vague "GW said so on facebook".
No, the rule should simply prohibit any and all use of facebook as "proof". Unless it's in a Rulebook or FAQ, for the purposes of YMDC it doesn't exist.
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

It's not a rule. It's a principle of effective discussion.

And, again, there is absolutely no problem with pointing to a Warhammer Community Facebook post as an example of how to play a disputed rule, provided that you bear in mind yak's points above.

But no, I don't think there is any specific need to provide an actual link to the post in question, but it's obviously going to hold more weight if you do. 'I'm sure I saw a post...' is not going to make much traction against most people, although it might give them a starting place to go and find it if they're interested enough.

 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 insaniak wrote:
But no, I don't think there is any specific need to provide an actual link to the post in question, but it's obviously going to hold more weight if you do. 'I'm sure I saw a post...' is not going to make much traction against most people, although it might give them a starting place to go and find it if they're interested enough.


There's a need for the same reason this kind of source was banned in the past: if it isn't a verifiable source then it adds nothing to the discussion and can only spawn pointless arguments. "I'm sure I saw a post" is worthless spam at best, and trolling at worst. If you aren't going to convince anyone with an argument then why is a zero-content post like that not against forum rules regarding spamming?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
Unless it's in a Rulebook or FAQ, for the purposes of YMDC it doesn't exist.


Actually it does, because the YMDC rules have just been changed to allow it.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/05/02 11:22:50


There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

 Peregrine wrote:

There's a need for the same reason this kind of source was banned in the past: if it isn't a verifiable source then it adds nothing to the discussion and can only spawn pointless arguments. "I'm sure I saw a post" is worthless spam at best, and trolling at worst. If you aren't going to convince anyone with an argument then why is a zero-content post like that not against forum rules regarding spamming?.

I just told you why it's not spam. Someone not having a link to the post in question doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and so it's still useful to point out that it does, for those who care.

 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Secret Squirrel






Leerstetten, Germany

There's a DakkaDakka Facebook post and a GW Facebook post saying that their social media posts shouldn't be used for YMDC threads.

I said that I saw it, so that's proof enough that GW ruled that we shouldn't do that. Don't like it, proof to me that GW wrote on their Facebook page that we could! The Discussion is closed, no point keeping it going, my word is good enough, the MODs said so in Nuts & Bolts.

And honestly, that's the problem. It's not like it's hard to link to a Facebook post. It's not to hard to ask someone to show their source for a social media post the same way we would like a source to a specific Rulebook or FAQ. If we don't require a link, there is no point refuting or even acknowledging someone's interpretation of a Facebook posts if we can't see the original question and answer. Without requiring a link, anyone can make up anything, and it's up to everybody else to dig through Facebook posts to find whatever post they were talking about.

I know that Facebook lets you embed posts, but I don't think that works with our forum software. We added the function to embed Youtube videos, maybe we could add a feature to embed Facebook posts as well? I don't know if it would be worth the effort for lego.
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

 d-usa wrote:

I said that I saw it, so that's proof enough that GW ruled that we shouldn't do that. Don't like it, proof to me that GW wrote on their Facebook page that we could! The Discussion is closed, no point keeping it going, my word is good enough, the MODs said so in Nuts & Bolts.

No, that's not what was said at all.

Saying 'I saw it on Facebook' does not constitute proof. What it does is simply tell people that there might be a relevant post on Facebook if they want to bother finding it.

It doesn't change the fact that Facebook posts aren't 'official' rulings, nor does it change the weight of an argument that doesn't include actual rules references.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/02 23:24:12


 
   
Made in us
[ADMIN]
President of the Mat Ward Fan Club






Los Angeles, CA


I'm not opposed to adding that people should post a link to any social media post that they reference (cause they should do that anyway). However, ultimately its really irrelevant because as is pointed out in the YMDC tennent change, these types of posts are not 'official' in any way.

So quoting such a post is only ancillary data for those who are interested in potential (likely) future rulings coming down the pipe. Yes, it should be made easy for people to find said information, but that information never has any impact on what the 'official' answer to the question currently is.


I play (click on icons to see pics): DQ:70+S++G(FAQ)M++B-I++Pw40k92/f-D+++A+++/areWD104R+T(D)DM+++
yakface's 40K rule #1: Although the rules allow you to use modeling to your advantage, how badly do you need to win your toy soldier games?
yakface's 40K rule #2: Friends don't let friends start a MEQ army.
yakface's 40K rule #3: Codex does not ALWAYS trump the rulebook, so please don't say that!
Waaagh Dakka: click the banner to learn more! 
   
 
Forum Index » Nuts & Bolts
Go to: