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.

Attached below is the updated (1.1) version of the Independent National Warhammer 40,000 Tournament FAQ (INAT_FAQ). Barring any major errors we missed, this will the final version of the document for use at Adpeticon 2008. I would like to thank everyone who provided feedback on the document as it definitely helped us fill in some of the blanks and fix a few issues.

All new questions and revised rulings are noted by having their answer text colored red, as well as being denoted by a ( + ) symbol before their question number. Please note that In some cases the only change to a question and/or answer may have been to revise the text to make it more clear.

It is important to note that roughly 95% of the document is exactly the same as the 1.0 version. No major changes were made to the overall purpose of this FAQ. Anyone who was thoroughly dissatisfied with the FAQ before is still going to be disappointed with the new version. Although we are open to any and all feedback regarding the FAQ, there is no need to re-submit the same complaints you had with the 1.0 version of the FAQ, as those issues have indeed been taken under advisement for the future.

For those who wish to improve the FAQ moving forward, please feel free to submit questions you think we missed and/or issues regarding consistency or clarity amongst our existing rulings. Although the FAQ will (almost assuredly) not be updated again before Adepticon 2008, the document will indeed be updated once Adepticon is completed for those who wish to continue to utilize it. Therefore, constructive feedback will most certainly help the FAQ to grow and improve for future use.

Many people have asked: "Why did you call it the 'Independent National Warhammer 40,000 tournament FAQ' instead of just calling it the 'Adepticon FAQ', are you trying to force people to play the game your way?"


First, the notion that we can somehow "force" anyone outside of Adepticon to use this FAQ simply because it isn't called the "Adepticon FAQ" is ludicrous. This FAQ is clearly unofficial so the only way it will see use outside of Adepticon is for a tournament organizer (TO) or gaming group to choose to use it.

This, of course, will only occur because they decide that it is a document of worth to them. If they don't find the document worthwhile, they won't use it. The implementation of the FAQ will therefore only ever be determined by the usefulness of the document, not because of what it is called.


Second, although rulings were made by the council as a whole, the document was written by me (yakface) as opposed to the Adepticon crew as with previous years. While I have most certainly become friends with the team that runs Adepticon, I am not what you would consider your typical 'Adepticon guy' because I don't live and play in the mid-west (I live in LA) and I'm not really involved with creating or executing Adepticon besides contributing to the FAQ.

Unlike previous years, this FAQ was not written specifically for the event (with only rulings that are pertinent to the tournaments they hold). Instead, I tried to write it with a fairly universal style so that, should a tournament organizer like the rulings found in the INAT_FAQ, they would be able to use it for their tournament without making any major changes. From experience, a pre-made tournament FAQ can be a very useful tool for a TO or gaming group who feels that they need such a resource for their tournament/gaming group but don't want to do the leg-work to collate the myriad of questions that need answering.

Did I name the FAQ in hopes that tournaments outside of Adepticon might use it? Of course, but not because of the name. Rather the name is simply a signal saying the FAQ is written in such a way that if you like what you read it can and will work great for your tournaments too (not just Adepticon).


In the end, if you like the FAQ, use it for your event. If you don't like it, don't use it! Also, please feel free to use the document as a basis for your own FAQ. Our FAQ was written with a very specific goal in mind: to help facilitate a smooth running tournament. Because of that, some of our rulings may not seem to make much sense to your particular gaming group and there really isn't any reason that you can't take the document and change it to fit your own particular needs.


Edit: I almost forgot to mention that one of the best new features about the updated FAQ is the massive incorporation of hyperlinks. Now you can click on the table of contents and be taken directly to that section. Also, all the little 'reference' numbers after many of the rulings are now hyperlinked too, allowing you to jump straight to ther other related rulings and check out what they say.

It took a lot of time to insert all those hyperlinks, but I have to say the work was definitely worth the ease of use now!

BTW - I love the hyperlinks. Streamlined and easy to use.

Very nice.

And I'm just a little too late in noticing something.

The question about Deffcoptas Turbo-boosting (which is in there) needs to be answered for Ravenwing bikes and attack bikes too. Or more generally for bikes/jetbikes with the Scout USR.

While I like the standard FAQ set up, I get really uneasy when you actually rewrite the rule.. Other than that, nice job..

I think a middle ground classification between [clarification] and [rules change] would have helped a lot for general acceptance of the FAQ. The great majority of rules change items I encountered were things that could be argued either way by RAW, and the INAT_FAQ council chose the direction that is most played. That doesn't really constitute a rules change in my opinion, more like an [ambiguity resolution].

A rules change is something where you explicitly rewrite what is clearly stated. These occurrences exist, but are much rarer in the FAQ.

I like that idea. I agree that the sheer number of things labeled “change” is a big hangup for a lot of folks who simply aren’t aware of how many real gaps and conflicts are in the rules. In some ways I think the group’s honesty about their changes is hindering the acceptance of the FAQ.

Ditto Moz and Mannahnin.

The rule about the truk being removed and replaced with an area of difficult ground was never really clarified. A crater? Cover? No cover? LOS? I thought you mentioned that you would add something to clean that up, unless I just missed it, which is entirely possible.



Thanks for the update.



Clay

Should be covered here: +RB.67.05

Haven't finished it completely yet, but it looks good so far.

One question that does seem to be missing. What happens if while you are in the middile of making an assault move, you discover that one of your models has hit difficult terrain and there isn't a way to avoid it? Do you roll a difficult terrain test and just apply it to the remaining models, do you back up all your models and apply the test to everyone (possibly keeping the whole unit out of hand to hand or just slowing down most of them), or something else entirely. Its one that seems to come up often and there hasn't been a definitive answer (as far as I know).

Mannahnin wrote:Very nice.

And I'm just a little too late in noticing something.

The question about Deffcoptas Turbo-boosting (which is in there) needs to be answered for Ravenwing bikes and attack bikes too. Or more generally for bikes/jetbikes with the Scout USR.

The DA codex actually says that they can't turbo boost during the scout move.

Primarch wrote:The rule about the truk being removed and replaced with an area of difficult ground was never really clarified. A crater? Cover? No cover? LOS? I thought you mentioned that you would add something to clean that up, unless I just missed it, which is entirely possible.



Thanks for the update.



Clay

Yeah, as muwhe pointed out that clarification got added to the general rulebook questions rather than just to the Orks (since it really isn't specific to the Orks at all).

Phoenix wrote:Haven't finished it completely yet, but it looks good so far.

One question that does seem to be missing. What happens if while you are in the middile of making an assault move, you discover that one of your models has hit difficult terrain and there isn't a way to avoid it? Do you roll a difficult terrain test and just apply it to the remaining models, do you back up all your models and apply the test to everyone (possibly keeping the whole unit out of hand to hand or just slowing down most of them), or something else entirely. Its one that seems to come up often and there hasn't been a definitive answer (as far as I know).

That's answered by the GW online rulebook FAQ. Assault section, 2nd question.

As with all things Adepticon-related, I really admire the effort put into it and the quailty of the final product. This is what all gaming tournies should strive to be.

I agree that some issues heavily debated by RAW (like can Space Wolf WGBL have heavy weapons) should maybe be labeled as "RAW decision", where things like putting the BT Champion in a drop pod are definitely "rules changes".

So great with the hyperlinks. Big ups to all involved.

I know, when I wrote a FAQ for DaBoyz tournament, I just took out the markers of what was rules changes because people didn't believe that the rules actually say what they do...

On to the FAQ - I really don't think an Avatar should be immune to an incinerator, as it's specifically an anti-daemon weapon.

Ill agree with most of the others, very nice written and liked pdf but way to much rule changes, almost to many to even be called warhammer 40.000.

Also, if the writers of the FAQ is actually gonna play the tourney the integrity is in jeopardy.

Well done, Answers a lot of nit picky questions that seem to come up. Good job !

You left the neural shredder-->instant death thing in?

Hahahaha....wow...quality...

Skyth, very few people have any idea remotely resembling what the rules actually say. Including the Adepticon "council."

I don't see what you would want from the Neural shredder then. Instant death on T4 since the weapon description says it is Str 8? Or no instant death at all because the weapon profile is Str X and the Instant death rulebox does not reference leadership?

Since the neural shredder description indicates that it uses leadership instead of toughness, and the to wound chart is used as normal (note that the to wound chart is specifically referenced, but instant death is not) - I would probably go with no instant death at all. But only allowing instant death on Weirdboyz who have been hit with Purgatus is probably just as good.

Is this really such a big deal that council has to go into "council" and you have to emphasize how displeased you are with the quality? What impact does this ruling have on the FAQ in general besides to serve as a single example for an 'arbitraty ruling' that you get to shoot down? It may not be arbitrary, they may have put a lot of effort into that conclusion, but I am assuming that based on the extreme rarity (read Purgatus, Weirdboy) it probably received less attention than say LOS. Big deal.

It just goes to show the hypocrisy of their claim to rule "the way it's played."

I've never, ever, ever had anyone associate the neural shredder with instant death...

Arbitrary? Sure. Meaningless? Certainly not. The reasoning it must've taken to reach the shredder=ID conclusion serves as a fine example of the sort of decision making that the "council" is capable of.

I'm not against a FAQ, and Adepticon is without doubt a spectacular event. I wouldn't go so far as to base a decision not to attend solely on the FAQ. However, regardless of the need for a FAQ, the content and rules choices made in this one leave a LOT to be desired. I admire the work that went in to it, but I renounce many of the decisions made. This isn't much better than a GW product because of the sheer arbitrariness of some of the rulings. The shredder is just one example.

At least it's correctly labeled as a "rules change." The reasoning behind it, though...makes me laugh hysterically. Perhaps some of the bias of the designers did slip through? (not that THAT's ever happened before...)

I have seen people (rightly) claim that it is stated to be a STR8 weapon in its description. It also wounded a T4 model. A model was wounded by a weapon with double its toughness. Instant death applies.

There is nothing wrong with this approach. The weapon is described both as Str 8 and Str X. Of course if you tried this on me and we didn't have an INAT_FAQ in effect, I could argue that instant death only happens when you 'fail your save' and since my model gets no save from the Neural shredder, it's not going to be subject to instant death (Hurrr! I read it on YMDC!). The point being, with the FAQ : no problem > without the FAQ : problems.

Denying instant death to the neural shredder is largely the "rules as played". Saying it works off the Ld of the target has exactly the same effect except one ridiculously rare case. It also apparently enrages you and makes you declare the FAQ writers incompetent.

How about instead of comparing it to the paragon of a document that you would produce in a perfect world, you compare it to what currently exists and what has existed before for 40k? This is way ahead of anything else we have access to, and I challenge you to disprove that.

Um...other than the main 40k rules, which despite being difficult to decipher still offer as much substantive game rules as this document does...in a more concise manner.

Suffice it to say that you aren't referencing the RAW or the INAT_FAQ in defending the council's ruling on neural shredders.

What's the point of making a rule explicitly for a ridiculously rare case AND violating the RAW at the same time? Not only is this >not< RAP (which the "council" purports to have used to resolve rules), it isn't even RAW.

Again, it's that whole consistency in revision thing... Go with RAW or plug up YMDC with "how do YOU play it..." polls, but don't arbitrarily use both, and don't circumvent your own guidelines, which was clearly done in this case and others.

None of this "enrages" me, but I'm certainly going to offer my criticism, harsh though it may be, in an attempt to produce a better product, or at least give the authors a better idea of why and where their player base might disagree. In some cases, vehemently. In my opinion, not addressing this ruling in the face of the criticism stated before the "decision was final," not only violates the process that the authors claim to have used to produce the document, it weakens any sliver of faith a reader of this FAQ might have in the objectivity and rationality of the authors.

If the RAW works (i.e. isn't game-breaking or unacceptably ridiculous, like their shredder ruling), unfamiliar though some players may be with it, why not use it?

Edit: I'm dropping it. You're telling me that this is your form of constructive criticism, alright sure.

ColonelEllios wrote:

None of this "enrages" me, but I'm certainly going to offer my criticism, harsh though it may be, in an attempt to produce a better product, or at least give the authors a better idea of why and where their player base might disagree. In some cases, vehemently. In my opinion, not addressing this ruling in the face of the criticism stated before the "decision was final," not only violates the process that the authors claim to have used to produce the document, it weakens any sliver of faith a reader of this FAQ might have in the objectivity and rationality of the authors.

If the RAW works (i.e. isn't game-breaking or unacceptably ridiculous, like their shredder ruling), unfamiliar though some players may be with it, why not use it?

This ruling is so amazingly insignifigant I am frankly baffled that you would make this your banner point for why you hate the FAQ. Look, the document is the best it can be given the time available to create it. I'll take full responsibility for that particular ruling, I meant to have a look at revising it with the council but with all the other changes and new questions brought up since the 1.0 release this particular one slipped through the cracks.

At the end of the day you have to realize that if you put out a FAQ I guarantee that no matter what criteria you use to make your rulings, there will be a large amount of people that will disagree with you. It is just a fact.

When any body makes a decision that seems controversial, it's improtant to seperate decisions that are totally out of line, and those that while controversial, are supported by both evidence and reasoning. The standard is "could a reasonable man disagree?"

The way I read it, there are at least three positions that could be supported:
1) Since the weapon is Strength X, it can never cause instant death.
2) Since Strength is compared to Leadership, it can only instant kill things with LD4.
3) Since the weapon inflicts a Strength 8 wound on models, it will cause instant death to any model T4 or less.

Based on my reading, the third option seems the strictest RAW, but all three are supported. My point is that decisions that seem odd but supported are viable. A body that chooses to make a ruling will undoubtedly upset somebody with the option picked.

One final thought: If this wasn't published in a FAQ, but was simply decided in the (admittedly rare case it happens) on scene by a judge, there is recourse to complain, because judge's decisions on scene are final.

Funny thing, the "official" 40k GT FAQ gives the same ruling.

Q. Can the neural shredder instant kill models? If so models with T4 or Ld4?

A. Yes, it will Instant Kill models with a Toughness of 4 or less.


but that is a crazy crazy FAQ....

ColonelEllios wrote:It just goes to show the hypocrisy of their claim to rule "the way it's played."

I've never, ever, ever had anyone associate the neural shredder with instant death...

You must have never played against our group in an event. We play that the Neural Shredder causes ID on toughness 4 or less models. So it's not hipocrisy on their part. It may be lack of exposure on yours.

I don't think that the neural shredder insta-kill ruling is a rules change, but rather it's RAW.

"Strength X" and "counts as str 8 against leadership..." both fall comfortably out of the realm of influence of ID. This is obviously not a weapon that works in any remotely normal way. Assuming ID is an unreasonable stretch of the imagination, since the weapon doesn't have a normal listed strength. However, this isn't a topic for debating RAW, so that's all I'll say on that.

As far as Yak's points: I don't think there would have been such a level of controversy if consistency was made priority #1. As far as this being my "banner" critique, it is only in the sense that, in my perception, it betrays the sort of wacky logic that went into many of the council's final rulings. I think just about all of these rulings have been brought up by one person or another...

These are the things that will prevent this FAQ going regional (well, and 5th edition, so I guess that statement will never be proven...) At Adepticon? Fantastic. Do whatever you like. But I think you shot your greater objective in the foot early on, which is unfortunate.

This FAQ is more consistent than any other FAQ ever produced (GW or fan-made) and I firmly stand by that claim. To say it isn't consistent is utterly ridiculous.

Again, you may think there is some easy 'RAW' ruling you can abide by, but again I GUARANTEE that if you were to release your FAQ using whatever criteria you decide to use people would start screaming bloody hell that your FAQ is crap and not consistent and changes the rules too much, etc.

This is because players do not agree on what the RAW say or when a situation is unclear enough to warrant a rules change. It is a fact.


But your claim is false that this FAQ is not consistent. Unlike other FAQs which tend to be a series of questions answered separately (which leads to incosistent rulings) every ruling in this FAQ was double or triple checked against the other rulings in the FAQ to make sure that we were as consistent as we could be.


And this FAQ will never 'go national' simply because it isn't an official document. As I said above it will be used at the whim of individual TO's and gaming groups. You certainly cannot speak for anyone else's feelings about the FAQ besides yourself.

Considering that GW doesn't want to produce the FAQ, I appreciate the efforts.
I don't see why there would be a problem because of thier failings, and even before trying it out at least people would have an issue.

Bottom line, RULES AS WRITTEN doesn't help you if the Rules are written like crap.

Thanks for the effort Yak.