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.

News: Title sums up the majority of it, but I must say I'm rather displeased with this. Browsed out to GW, checked vainly for scenarios for Chicago, and found a link to
http://www.adepticon.org/09rules/0940Kchamp.html, stating that the Adepticon FAQ would be used for this event.

Rant: I understand the want for a definitive set of rules, but this is ridiculous. I have purchased two battlewagons and have the upgrade sprues on order for deffrollas specifically because deffrolla tank shock was ruled legal for round two. Guess what? Adepticon FAQ states otherwise. Thanks for stealing a bit more of my cash, GW!!!

That'll teach you to kick Jervis's dog, man! You're just lucky that he didn't find out which army you were playing and issue a PDF codex for it!

If you werent trying to take advantage of a rule that many people will disagree with you on, one that you were hoping that a judge would side with your veiwpoint...you wouldnt have a problem in the first place.

Next time dont base your tactics on a simple peice of wargear and build an army instead. That way when people decide not to play it the way you expect you can shrug your shoulders and say "oh well" and get on with the game...and not feel "cheated" that people dont play a gray area rule your way.

Deff Rolla tank shock/ram wasn't ruled legal at my tournament. I guess we would have had a problem, but not anymore.

It was ruled legal at mine and resulted in me losing the game for 1st place and pushed me into 6th (I didn't lose a single tank to anything except Deff Rollaz). I'm in favor of a rule set even if it is the Adepticon FAQ. It will at least cut down on multi-regional ruling issues.

I dont see why it is a bad idea for him to try to capitalize on one of the few rules that gave his orks a way to take out tanks....

Thats pretty awesome congrats adepticon faq people.

Now if only we could get it updated with IG stuff and other stuff.

That's really cool.
its a really good FAQ period and although I disagree with 5% to 10% maybe of it I think its 200 percent better than the gak GW puts out.

Deadshane1 wrote:If you werent trying to take advantage of a rule that many people will disagree with you on, one that you were hoping that a judge would side with your veiwpoint...you wouldnt have a problem in the first place.

Next time dont base your tactics on a simple peice of wargear and build an army instead. That way when people decide not to play it the way you expect you can shrug your shoulders and say "oh well" and get on with the game...and not feel "cheated" that people dont play a gray area rule your way.

Yeah, how dare someone try to 'take advantage' of an official ruling from a tourney organizer.

"ardboyz is one big tournament, swapping rules from round to round is not a good idea.

For round 2 it wasn't "gray area", it was in the rules package sent out to the stores hosting regionals.

Hollismason wrote:Thats pretty awesome congrats adepticon faq people.

Now if only we could get it updated with IG stuff and other stuff.

That's really cool.
its a really good FAQ period and although I disagree with 5% to 10% maybe of it I think its 200 percent better than the gak GW puts out.

Your wish shall be granted. We are working on the IG items this week.

Where the hell have you been?

I thought you might have gone into retirement.

Hey Allan,

I've been enjoying a summer off from traveling to events. Been working out, mountain biking and having all kinds of fun. We actually have at least three of us going to DaBoyz GT. It's within driving distance and I don't have to take any vacation days.

We are starting to ramp up preparations for AdeptiCon. There are a lot of great things that we are working on to make the event bigger and better than ever.

Hit me up on Facebook when you get a chance or give me a call this weekend.

Talk to ya' later,

Deadshane1 wrote:... say "oh well" and get on with the game...and not feel "cheated" that people dont play a gray area rule your way.

I don't really weigh in on one side of the argument or the other as to whether or not it SHOULD work. If I wanted to really take advantage of the thing, I would have bought multiple battlewagons when they were released, or scratch built more than just one when the codex was released. I've never even playtested a deffrolla against a vehicle, because I never asked anyone to let me use that "rule" when there wasn't a concise clarification on the matter. But the official (and relatively last minute, as it never hit the publicly viewable packet on the website) rules update sent out to the semifinal locations specified that the deff rolla tank shock was in fact legal. So I decided to take my winnings and a bit of cash to buy a couple of $60 wagons and $13 upgrade sprues, which has turned into all cash as I have yet to receive my gift certificate, and at this rate by the time I get it nothing I would have ordered with it would be guaranteed to arrive before the finals. The idea was to make use of the rule that was previously specified as 100% legal for this tournament, and I doubt I'm the only Ork player that ordered a wagon or a sprue or two based on this ruling.

I don't attend 'Ard Boyz myself.. no time, nor inclination to do that..

BUT

Doesn't this Adepticon FAQ being used by GW give it a HIGH level of legitimacy and a precedence going forward to have those guys make "Official FAQ rulings"?

I think that is VERY COOL.. as that FAQ (whether you agree with it or not) represents a HELL of a lotta work and thought that GW just does not seem to be able to come up with themselves..

I appreciate the work that was put into this FAQ, and love having a more concise ruleset, despite disagreeing with several of the rulings (deff rolla not being one of them before anyone accuses me of egocentrism). It just doesn't look like this was chosen over INAT or any other established tournament FAQ by merit so much as "this is how we play around here in Chicago", Adepticon being a Chicago based convention. So the legitimacy of this FAQ doesn't leave Chicago as far as I'm concerned.

Addendum: (Neither the above nor the below is a shot at you or your team, Inquisitor_Malice, just my general feelings on the issue as an interested party limited to the information made available to me.)

For those who only play Imperial Guard or had considered switching to them for the finals, it's got to be nervewracking to read the above, having three weeks until the tournament and finding out that your FAQ is being worked on this week. Not saying anything will be broken or nerfed or what have you, but there is potential for something to change about how your army is going to work within two to three weeks of the tournament. Doesn't that sound like fun?

The Adepticon Faq was chosen because the Bunker staff do not want to spend the entire tournament running from table to table trying to settle regional rules disputes. They also don't want someone to travel all the way to Illinois only to find out a certain percentage of their army doesn't work the way they thought anymore.

Two choices.

1) Have someone sit down and write a ruling for every possible situation and rules combination from every codex and the main rulebook. This person will also need to have big enough authority to make their decisions stick with the GW community. I don't think anyone in England cares to do this or would have the time.

2) Adopt the most comprehensive FAQ ever written which has already endured through the 2 largest weekends of 40k gaming in the last 2 years.

I think the second option is the easiest and wisest choice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Malecus wrote:I appreciate the work that was put into this FAQ, and love having a more concise ruleset, despite disagreeing with several of the rulings (deff rolla not being one of them before anyone accuses me of egocentrism). It just doesn't look like this was chosen over INAT or any other established tournament FAQ by merit so much as "this is how we play around here in Chicago", Adepticon being a Chicago based convention. So the legitimacy of this FAQ doesn't leave Chicago as far as I'm concerned.

Addendum: (Neither the above nor the below is a shot at you or your team, Inquisitor_Malice, just my general feelings on the issue as an interested party limited to the information made available to me.)

For those who only play Imperial Guard or had considered switching to them for the finals, it's got to be nervewracking to read the above, having three weeks until the tournament and finding out that your FAQ is being worked on this week. Not saying anything will be broken or nerfed or what have you, but there is potential for something to change about how your army is going to work within two to three weeks of the tournament. Doesn't that sound like fun?

I don't agree with you at all. First the INAT Faq was written by a majority of members who do not live within 100 miles of Chicago, including Wisconsin, Ohio, Virginia, Florida and California. To claim this FAQ is regional is simply not true. Second you say the IG players should be worried, why? If an IG players wishes to bring Valkyries/Vendettas (probably the most contentious unit currently) I don't think they would like to find out, the day of the event and during a game, that they can't disembark the way they want, or their hull is now defined to include wings. I'm not saying any of that will happen with the FAQ, but if we leave it up to the way you want to play it, then we are d6ing every contentious aspect of that unit every time it comes up in each game. An IG player could expect to play his Valkyrie 3 different ways in 3 games depending on how the dice roll. That doesn't sound smart.

The staff at the Bunker who are running the Ard Boyz finals have received the scenarios and there is no rules packet to clarify anything in this round. They have to make the judgements themselves and have made the best choice as far as I'm concerned. I don't agree with the INAT faq 100% at all, but I do agree that a clearly designed set of FAQ's, culled from a nationwide group of players (which this is), is the best possible option.

Malecus wrote:I appreciate the work that was put into this FAQ, and love having a more concise ruleset, despite disagreeing with several of the rulings (deff rolla not being one of them before anyone accuses me of egocentrism). It just doesn't look like this was chosen over INAT or any other established tournament FAQ by merit so much as "this is how we play around here in Chicago", Adepticon being a Chicago based convention. So the legitimacy of this FAQ doesn't leave Chicago as far as I'm concerned.

Addendum: (Neither the above nor the below is a shot at you or your team, Inquisitor_Malice, just my general feelings on the issue as an interested party limited to the information made available to me.)

For those who only play Imperial Guard or had considered switching to them for the finals, it's got to be nervewracking to read the above, having three weeks until the tournament and finding out that your FAQ is being worked on this week. Not saying anything will be broken or nerfed or what have you, but there is potential for something to change about how your army is going to work within two to three weeks of the tournament. Doesn't that sound like fun?

Just a clarification. The AdeptiCon FAQ and the INAT are two in the same. We are working with GW to have that corrected on their website.

Which FAQ allow deffrollas to affect ramming? I mean, sure it is still talked about but, I cannot find any documentation or FAQ that supports it. I see at least 2 mentioned (even if they are basically the same). Yes, TO and House rules can allow anything - but I mean documentation.

Sorry but I think I am missing something.

It's a great boost and show of support from GW toward the community as well. In fact I can't actually think of a time GW has said " Yea, we agree with this so much and even though we did not create it we are going to adopt it".

It'd be kind of cool to see the INAT faq adopted at other GW events.

DarthDiggler wrote:
1) Have someone sit down and write a ruling for every possible situation and rules combination from every codex and the main rulebook. This person will also need to have big enough authority to make their decisions stick with the GW community. I don't think anyone in England cares to do this or would have the time.

I have offered my services many times but no-one loves me

While I think a lot of the rulings in the INAT FAQ are terrible, this represents an important step towards establishing a tighter, standardized set of rules for tournament play, so I'm for it. It's certainly better than GW putting forth a half-assed attempt that only makes things worse, which is what I think we've all come to expect.

I dont really agree with some of the inat faq rulings but I wouldn't call them outright stupid.

So people playing in the finals are also writing the rules as we speak? Nice.

G

I don't think any of the Cali guys involved with the INAT FAQ are playing in it. Not sure about the other members of the group though.

Hulksmash wrote:I don't think any of the Cali guys involved with the INAT FAQ are playing in it. Not sure about the other members of the group though.

Hell - I didn't even play in the ard Boyz this year. I was too busy hiking and biking in Michigan's UP. My sig kinda sums up this year for me.

GT's don't make the difference for me, being single does That's the only time I'm in great shape!

"The staff at the Bunker who are running the Ard Boyz finals have received the scenarios "

.... so, being a regular in Chicago is paying off right about now, hey?

Hee! Must be nice indeed.

G

The link for the Faq is not working and I REALLY want to take a look at it.

Can someone provide a link or someway that I can read the Faq that GW will use for Ard boyz?

Also I dont understand what the Adepticon FAQ is exactly and whats the difference from the INAT FAQ the adepticon site has (the pdf is dated as 19-3-09)

http://www.adepticon.org/files/INATFAQv2.2.pdf

CatPeeler wrote:http://www.adepticon.org/files/INATFAQv2.2.pdf

So the Adepticon FAQ IS the inat 2.2 faq ? Nice

Ok just to clarify something since im in Greece and we dont have GW Or Ard boyz here (Just local Miniature game stores), What exactly is the deal with GW and that Inat faq?
I dont know if I understand correctly, but does Games Workshop approve and enforce that particular FAQ as official rulings set for the Ard Boyz tournament ?

If thats the case, Ill print it and bring it in our local store to have it as a "officially approved" Faq by GW