Actually, yeah, that would have been preferable. Like I said, clarity is important, and the PG is no longer an accurate source of information. When you're quoting rulings like that, you can't quote a source that's only correct 50% of the time, when a lot of people will have no idea how to tell when its right or wrong.

So, yes, your answer was correct, but the PG does not provide accurate information. It was a general statement about the PG, not a personal attack on your answer.

I think that you may be missing vlad's point.

He is not really arguing that the PG is any kind of official source. He is stating his belief that the single document PG is a superior method for rules distribution than the forum.

Aside from him saying it was easier for him to search that than the E&C (which I really don't understand, since you can hit ctrl+F to search either), I don't see how that was ever part of the discussion. And to be honest, entirely irrelevant. For the time being, we have the WIN and the E&C. People need to know where to look for accurate answers.

If that's easier for him, fine. Just don't quote it as a rules source in the rules forum, where some number of people aren't going to know any different. Because, if you google the PG, the last one does still come up. Its still hosted somewhere on WKs site (and possibly elsewhere) with no actual link to it anymore. The 2013 versions are available here, which are even more outdated, and should have been removed long ago.

I'd prefer the Player's Guide is never referenced at all in the rules forums, but I can't really control that. What I can do, is let people know that when it does come up, it is in no way an official source of information any longer.

Especially at a time when rulings have been changing fairly rapidly, I value giving people the most recent and accurate information possible, and letting them know where they can find it for themselves.

It really is nothing against you, Vlad (or anyone else), please, don't take it personally.

The old PG in pdf form has merits. It is definitely more accessible. I too found it easier to search for a longtime. But I have become accustom to the new web page format of the same document and can now search that document almost as fast. For some things the web page has become slightly more efficient.

As you know I wont throw any of the documents away as sometimes the evolution of the rules sometimes can create understanding.

I also want to point out that the absence of a ruling that was in the old PG but no longer appears in the WIN doesnt necessarily make the PG ruling out dated.

For Instance this can be found in the old PG but not WIN
Its not in WIN but I dont see any reason that it wouldnt still be true.

The only real problem with the Old PG is that a few of the rules have been overturned simply by omission, most notably to me is the way in which they calculate once per game/round/turn effect with regards to mind control.

Regardless of the source you choose to quote, your insight and expertise in the rules is always appreciated here.

And I'm just answering this in the interest of unity: it wasn't personal. And I didn't take VP's as #####ing, but some of the PG outdated and to anyone that hasn't saved a copy, all of it is hard to find.

Whether you like the way they do it now or not*, the WIN forum (and I mean the E and C forum) is the best place to find the most accurate and up to date wordings/rulings. And considering how many people we've had arguing some inane points lately **, it's better for some of the "old guard" to stay on the same page.

*I can see why it's nicer to have a PDF saved on your device of choice to look up clarifications, but I can also see how a forum is easier on their side.

**It seems like the pedantry goes in cycles. This just seems like the starting of a crest.

The forum has pros and cons.

I think the biggest issue for people with whom I have spoken is that there is sometimes a lack of notification of ruling changes. When each pdf was released the changes were highlighted.

The forum allows speedier updates when things change, which is great, but many people feel that those changes should be announced and not just something which gets noticed only if someone happens to stumble upon it.

Things like the size article have covered some major ones, but all rulings don't seem to get that treatment.

Very true. I'm *hoping* the major problems with the E&C get remedied in the future. For now, though, its a little more understandable. The rules in general are in a bit of a state of flux, and the game in general is still in a transition period as far as overall design.

It would be great if changes were highlighted in some way, but with the rate of additions to the E&C, recent ruling reversals, etc., its just not the most practical thing right now.

It not perfect system.*


*Huge bonus points for anyone that gets that reference.

That's my biggest issue with it as well. I'm not sure how to correct it (as they seem to, for some reason, not want to highlight changes and prefer to whitewash history). It just strikes me as odd that they highlight some changes but not others...

Well, they don't highlight any changes on the forums. The only things they "highlight" are the rules articles. You can't really do an article for every ruling. Those are just for major overhauls or additions to the game (size, equip, etc.). Which would also, incidentally, all have probably been part of the rule book if that hadn't been delayed, and most certainly will be when we do get it.

All I'd really want them to do are bump edited responses to questions, instead of stealth editing them, and maybe highlight or date stamp E&C entries. Just those two, simple things would solve a lot of the issues with the WIN Rules Forums.

That's what I find odd, though. If you go to the E&C thread, they have a few listings in the first post of "general" updates and a few that are specific. But other additions have gone completely unremarked on. That's what I find odd.

But otherwise, yes, I completely agree.

Ah, that, yeah. Well, in the Rules E&C thread, the only thing right now is this:
Which, again, was because of an article, so I guess that makes sense. With the rate they add stuff right now, trying to add every new entry to that list would make it ridiculous. Like I said, I'm really hoping it improves once things settle down.

Agreed. If I could make a suggestion, I would settle for --Date: Added to "Heading, Heading, Heading.--

It would help to highlight in a similar vein to the old red text.

Yeah, even if it was just once a week. Or adding date stamps to the individual entries. Anything like that would be a huge help with just keeping up with it.