I do not have a chip on my shoulder.

If you read my earlier posts, I said I would be happy if GW chose to officially support this FAQ. (using it for one tournament is not that) However until they do that it is just a bunch of house rulings. It will not be accept by the masses until either one of two things happen.

GW officially supports it.
A larger amount of the community has a say in it. (more than just dakka dakka)

If GW supported it for every one of their tournaments then it would be recognized as the official FAQ.

If a huge amount of the community had some (any) involvement in it, then they would accept it more readily for RTT events and such and it would become official.


As is, it is just a FAQ written by 7 people and used for 1 (now 2) tournaments. And is not used by the masses and is therefore not all that useful.


On the concept of bias, everyone has them. Me claiming that 7 individuals who wrote something have a bias based on who they are, is like me claiming their is water in the ocean.

I can't physically prove it, but everyone knows its true.
Now 7 people together might help to remove some of that, but it won't completely. Especially when all 7 people are basically the same demographic.

I feel that a bigger issue is that the FAQ was not in effect for the whole tournament. I can see some of the Adepticon rulings I don't like, but I am willing to play by their rules.

A valid point that Timmah made at the beginning that that I feel was lost was that he spent money on a product that will not function the way it did in the last round. I can understand his frustrations, because if I were to drop prize money on product for a tournament and it wasn't going to work I would be pissed also.

In closing, I just hope that everybody reads the FAQ, and follows the rules. I will have to print out the FAQ and bring it just in case.

rednekgunner wrote:
A valid point that Timmah made at the beginning that that I feel was lost was that he spent money on a product that will not function the way it did in the last round. I can understand his frustrations, because if I were to drop prize money on product for a tournament and it wasn't going to work I would be pissed also.

This I can understand and agree with. If you start with a set of rules, you should finish with the same set of rules.

Timmah wrote:1. I'm confused, why am I making an Ad hominem attack/argument when all I did was point out that you were making a personal attack towards me?

The ad hominem attacks on your part come in because you're not interested in discussing the merits of the FAQ on its own, instead you're solely arguing based on the people who created it.

When discussing, say, the merits of a particular document, it's a logical fallacy to attack the authors instead of the document itself. The particular fallacy is called an ad hominem attack.

It's like, for example, we said, "Try this delicious cheese!" and you responded, "But the milk used to make the cheese was from communist cows!" while the rest of us are deciding that whether or not we prefer Colby Jack to Cheddar, that having cheese available while grilling burgers is better than no cheese at all.

Timmah wrote:If GW supported it for every one of their tournaments then it would be recognized as the official FAQ.

As is, it is just a FAQ written by 7 people and used for 1 (now 2) tournaments. And is not used by the masses and is therefore not all that useful.

GW shouldn't support a third-party FAQ. They should be producing their own. Now, for some unusual circumstances, I can forgive them (for example, do Tau SMS, which ignore LOS, have to check for Night-fighting, Veil of Tears, GK Aegis Armor, etc.). But, big rules issues (do deff rollas cause d6 S10 hits on Armored vehicles, can you disembark from a valkyrie except by grav-chute or a hill, etc.), they have no excuse. I can't even forgive them for not having coherent FAQs for older edition codexes (NFW vs EW, the point cost for SW rhinos, etc).

My experience is that most RTTs are willing to either accept the Adepticon FAQ wholesale, or with a handful of additional rulings and/or changes. And, that most RTTs are organized by people that don't peruse YMDC, so they're familiar with some of the big rule issues, but not the minor ones.

Timmah wrote:GW officially supports it.
A larger amount of the community has a say in it. (more than just dakka dakka)

You may have failed to notice that some of the current GW FAQs are based upon the Adepticon FAQ and even mention thanks to Yakface and crew directly.

I agree, GW SHOULD be doing their own FAQs, but GW has decided FAQs are not important to their business model. I would like to thank Yakface and the others for providing a reasonable replacement until such time as GW finally does.

Moonreaper wrote: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

As I understand it, the INAT guys have put in a ton of work on creating a comprehensive Tournament FAQ.

GW is happy to let them do so, rather than to compete with FREE labor, and is using it at Ard Boyz, but doesn't otherwise care about FAQs, leaving them to the players to resolve.

So they're officially unofficial. Or unofficially official.

temprus wrote:

Timmah wrote:GW officially supports it.
A larger amount of the community has a say in it. (more than just dakka dakka)

You may have failed to notice that some of the current GW FAQs are based upon the Adepticon FAQ and even mention thanks to Yakface and crew directly.

I agree, GW SHOULD be doing their own FAQs, but GW has decided FAQs are not important to their business model. I would like to thank Yakface and the others for providing a reasonable replacement until such time as GW finally does.

I'm not so sure he failed to notice. I didn't fail to notice. However what I did notice is GW jerking people around again by changing up the rules of a tournament mid run. This is the main issue as far as I see it. For the up coming fantasy 'ard boyz this month I hope they decide what rules they want to use BEFORE the tournament starts. Otherwise using your prize money on models you want to use in the next round is pointless yet again and people will be getting f'ed over yet again by their inability to resolve major issue with their buisness model (i.e. the rules).

Oh and a note to who ever posted that GW ships out the scenario and rules packages to tournament holders, they don't. Both locations I played at had to print it all themselves and inconsistantly rule on issues themselves. It would be nice if the organizers of the 'Ard Boyz did do such a package. No more rules inconsistancy between judges and places. It would have earned me 1st place in the semi's instead of 5th. I got screwed over by a necron player who purposely phased himself out a turn earlier than I wanted, stopping me from getting a few extra bonus points (they really need to remove phase out it wrecks tournament point systems). Would also have helped to have a consistant ruling on Gate, one judge said use it as RAW (you can use it no matter what in your movement phase if you can pass the leadership test) and the other said no in the next game of that round stating you can't use it if in combat because it didn't specifically say that combat doesn't stop the psyker from using this specific power during the movement phase(yet its ok to use any other psychic power that i allowed during the movement phase, you just might not be able to take advantage of the effect). That was the worest rules justification I had ever heard.

They changed 'ard Boys last year too.

SM used the new codex in the last round.

This is not new.

dietrich wrote:If GW was a gaming company, and not a miniatures company that made some rules, this wouldn't be an issue. Privateer Press, while having a massive FAQ/Errata, has figured out that to have a good game, you need to provide a good framework of rules.

Oddly enough, I have plenty of good games that don't require any FAQ or Errata from GW or INAT or anywhere else. Of course, I'm not spending my time playing zero-sum games against strangers to try and win prizes with actual monetary value above and beyond mere bragging rights... Thus, I would say that, to have a good game, you need to provide a reasonable framework of rules for a good group of players.
____

Strimen wrote: Basically my issue isn't with the FAQ its with GW for not play testing and doing this work themselves and releaseing a sound product.

I find it slowed when GW uses a user made FAQ in the third round of an offical tourny and then doesn't at the very least make that FAQ the now offical GW standard and just end the whole issue of their incompetence.

Our group finds that GW does more than adequate playtesting for our purposes, and that their products are generally sound.

I find it slowed that GW hosts tournaments with prize support at all, and wouldn't expect their suits to ever enshrine some fan product as official. When you get down to it, the FAQ is akin to a RTS "mod" - it supports a small percentage of the playerbase, who desperately need it for their own purposes.
____

dietrich wrote:GW shouldn't support a third-party FAQ. They should be producing their own.

My experience is that most RTTs are willing to either accept the Adepticon FAQ wholesale, or with a handful of additional rulings and/or changes.

Why? GW has repeatedly said they're moving away from FAQs and errata, and that a player should only need the Rulebook & Codex (or Army Book). A FAQ completely undermines that.

Most RTTs simply don't have the resources to compete with the INAT FAQ.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:There seems to be this notion that GW's officially unofficial FAQs, and even the rules themselves, are extensively though out, playtested, discussed and debated by developers who have a greater understanding of 40k than mere mortals can ever hope to achieve. GW's FAQs are mostly the result of coin flips, even before they just started accepting the INAT faqs. I'm not going to say that GW faqs wouldn't be "more correct," but they're not going to be that much more correct.

That is utterly, laughably *false*.

To be correct, you should have written:

"GW's FAQs are mostly the result of rolling a d6"

The INAT FAQ is well written and extensive but this could devolve into the wolf guarding the proverbial hen house.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:The INAT FAQ is well written and extensive but this could devolve into the wolf guarding the proverbial hen house.

G

Only in the minds of those that think that the wolf gives two shakes about any given hen in any given house. If someone on your "list" wins, then it is a big conspiracy. If someone on your list doesn't "win" but it was the exact same FAQ, it isn't a conspiracy. It's just a potential conspiracy until someone on the "list" wins again.

In my experience, people only point to wolves and hen houses if they would be a wolf in the same situation.

Sorry I think the message of my original argument was lost. (not to mention incorrectly labeled as ad hominem, suprise suprise.)


Anyways, the entire argument for this FAQ is that it was made by 7 very smart individuals who know the rules inside and out and came to a conclusion.
This is a logical fallacy. (different from ad hominem, yes there are other ones despite what the internets tell you)

This is an argument from authority fallacy. You are saying this FAQ is/should be legal rulings because it comes from a source that dakka believes is an authority.

I pointed out that the writers are not really an authority on the issue more than anyone else. But you may say, "oh they have judged multiple tournaments" Ok, do they have any formal judging training from GW? Nope, their rules knowledge comes from the exact same place everyone elses does. Reading the GW official FAQ's, the BRB and the codeci. No where else. GW does not have a formal training program for their judges or anything like that.

So as stated before the reason people are accepting this FAQ is in fact a fallacy and is incorrect reasoning.

Timmah wrote:This is an argument from authority fallacy. You are saying this FAQ is/should be legal rulings because it comes from a source that dakka believes is an authority.

I pointed out that the writers are not really an authority on the issue more than anyone else. But you may say, "oh they have judged multiple tournaments" Ok, do they have any formal judging training from GW? Nope, their rules knowledge comes from the exact same place everyone elses does. Reading the GW official FAQ's, the BRB and the codeci. No where else. GW does not have a formal training program for their judges or anything like that.

So as stated before the reason people are accepting this FAQ is in fact a fallacy and is incorrect reasoning.

Ok, as long as we're on the logical fallacies bandwagon, the above is called a straw man -- you're creating an argument ("Accept the FAQ because of the authority of the people who wrote it!") that no one is making, and attacking that.

Certainly, the argument you state is fallacious, but I'm not really reading that argument. Most of the pro-FAQ people seem to have the central point of "it's better than no FAQ, and the FAQ itself, while imperfect, is pretty good". You've consistently failed to address that argument.

It will not be accept by the masses until either one of two things happen.

Not to burst your bubble, but from the looks of it, a vast majority of 'the masses' that you speak for do indeed accept it.

Also: You can't assume that everyone is blithely accepting the FAQ as sheep without thinking for themselves. You seem to be implying that people simply accept the whole FAW, and this is a bad thing.

However, I'm confident that the majority of people are intelligent enough to decide for themselves whether something is good. I know that I, for one, would not use the FAQ in my games if I didn't think that it was well written, and that the rulings make sense in one form or another. You might not like that it was written by a small group of people, but that doesn't make the FAQ valid. The fact remains that they did it, great for them, and it's up to us to judge it ourselves.

Give us some credit for independence, please.

Lowinor wrote:Ok, as long as we're on the logical fallacies bandwagon, the above is called a straw man -- you're creating an argument ("Accept the FAQ because of the authority of the people who wrote it!") that no one is making, and attacking that.

Why doesn't everyone just agree to disagree. In 4 pages the argument is nowhere near being decided. Just let it go.

Sorry, my bad, I didn't know the masses = dakka dakka.

Pretty sure there are more people than the few that reply to threads like these on 1 forum.

As to your: "Most of the pro-FAQ people seem to have the central point of "it's better than no FAQ, and the FAQ itself, while imperfect, is pretty good"

You will notice most of my arguments showed how to make it better and were not really attacks on the people who wrote it.

Telling someone they have a bias is not an attack, its a simple fact. I can always interchange it with point of view.

Timmah wrote:You will notice most of my arguments showed how to make it better and were not really attacks on the people who wrote it.

When you need to add the Qualifier "Most", you are doing it wrong.

Gwar! wrote:

Timmah wrote:You will notice most of my arguments showed how to make it better and were not really attacks on the people who wrote it.

When you need to add the Qualifier "Most", you are doing it wrong.

As in most of the time when I made an argument against it, I showed how I believed it could be done better.

I can make a valid argument without that also.

So using the qualifier most is not really a detriment...

I am pretty sure you are the only one who keeps attacking people in this thread Gwar.

I dont' know man, I've read your posts, and most were pretty much just pointing out the small size of the council and it's non-democratically appointed composition. As far as I could tell your suggestions were "Involve more people."

In case anybody is curious, I quoted every one of Timmah's posts in this thread. Insinuations that the Adepticon council is biased, or other vague complaints about the character, are red. Suggestions are in blue.

Timmah wrote:So everyone attending ard boyz must memorize another 100 pages that essentially change a lot of the rules from the BRB?

Woow, nothing I love more than memorizing a huge set of rules across multiple books and now having to memorize another 100+ pages that contradict and change a lot of the rules in the current books I have memorized.

Awesome...

Timmah wrote:No, the problem I have with the INAT FAQ is that it changes a lot of the ruels, even clear rules.

This should not be in a group of players hands unless they are completely impartial.

Do I really need to explain the problems having an official document made by players who have a stock in different rulings?

Timmah wrote:
I believe some of the rulings do hurt certain armies and help others.

I ask this question to you though, how does one get on this council? Do they take anyone that wants to be on? Are only those with connections to current members able to get on? ect ect?

Depending on how you pick members, it could very well be that the majority of them share common ideas. They aren't going to invite someone who opposes their ideas, more than likely.

Timmah wrote:Any player is obviously bias. Pretending they aren't is rediculous.

Now depending on how they invite people the work could be very bias or very unbias.

However, considering that most people don't even know how the council is picked, that seems strange and suspicious.


Some/many of their rulings are fine imo, and probably in the opinion of a lot of players.

However some are just ludicrous. Go read the one on chaos dreadnoughts. Its just rediculous that they break rules for their opinion of how it works and then call it a clarification.

Timmah wrote:There are multiple items where they break rules and such in the FAQ. I labeled one, not everyone I could find.

So 7 people, chosen by adepticon, get to make the rulings for everything ambigous in all of the rules?

This sounds like a majorities opinion in most matters win. Obviously they are going to pick 7 people who they know will cooperate.

Pretending that all biases will be cleared up because they have a whole 7 people is a joke.

7 people is a complete joke as far as getting rid of biases. Heck the supreme court even needs 9 and those people are all suppose to be complete unbias and are scrutinized by many before hand.

So if one system needs 9 completely unbias people to get rid of any biases, how does a group of individuals based on who an organization knows, only need 7?

Timmah wrote:
Hello, this is a forum, where we discuss stuff. Personal attacks are not going to make your opinion right.
You of all people should know this Gwar.


All I am saying is that it should be obvious to most people that 7 people are going to be bias towards unclear rules and how they rule them. I think anyone that has taken a business or any type of ethics course would understand how biases work. Oh hey, look what armies you play and regularly play against. Of course you are going to have biases about them.

I am saying that 7 people chosen by a company, with no community input, is not a good basis for rules that determine a ton of grey areas. If you think it is, thats fine, but I for one, don't.


Also this. Some of the rules in there are changes to the actual RAW and they do feel like house rules.

Timmah wrote:I love how all the mods come out of the woodwork to defend this FAQ.

Couple of things.

1. I'm confused, why am I making an Ad hominem attack/argument when all I did was point out that you were making a personal attack towards me?

2. Yes, I would like more than 7 people, and I would like to know the selection process ect. If I am going to follow your rules, I want to know how you have come to them.

3. If GW is going to use this FAQ, I want it official and a link to it on their site. What about the people who don't come onto dakka to find out the rules? I see nothing on GW's site that says, "we are using the adepticon FAQ"


If GW wants to adopt it as their official FAQ, that is fine, I would love a concise set of rules like this. But I see nothing that says they have done this. They still have all of their FAQs/errata on their site and that is it.


I don't think a private set of rulings should be used unless the GW is going to take responsibility for them being correct. Meaning that they officially support and maintain them and replace/compliment the FAQ's on their site with it.

Timmah wrote:


No, I do not expect them to be consistant. Thats why the community needs to let them know that we want them to be consistant.
I personally am not going to lie down and just take whatever crap they send my way.

Its not that I don't like the rulings in the FAQ.

Its 2 things.

The way they are determined
The fact that GW is just adopting them for 1 event.


@RantheCid

Unfortunately I can not volunteer to staff an event because I do not live in the area. Since you are picking people solely from this list, would you not agree that some of these rules are almost house rules for the area?

Basically the people with massive amounts of time and are in your area are the only ones allowed to make the rules? Seems like only a certain demographic of people are going to be in this group doesn't it? Meaning bias in the FAQ.


@Frazzled
Workable alternative?
I am just one person, but I am sure there are many many reasonable alternatives.
Like a better diversity of people on the council that decides on the rulings. However all are pretty moot until GW decides to take some responsibility.

Either way, 7 people is not enough to make decisions for such a huge community over such controversial rules issues.

I would say you would want a mix of community leaders and well know members from both the Americas (USA, canada ect) and Europe. As this big diversity is going to have different opinions on how things work.

Timmah wrote:GW is the official source, they don't need to tell us why they chose to make certain rules.

I don't see why I owe someone money so they can make their UNOFFICIAL FAQ less bias.

I would happily volunteer my time to help write a more impartial FAQ, as I am sure many other 40k players would. Especially if it was going to be used by every/most RTT's.

The thing is, if you have people from all over the US help with this, then they all adopt it as the official FAQ and it becomes a better document.

As is, it feels like a couple gamers from the chicago area are telling us how they think we should play our game.


Letting more people in on the decision making, makes it more accepted by the masses.


Heres an idea.

Ask for volunteers and invite a number of community managers from different websites. Librarium online, tau online, dakka dakka, YTTH, warseer ect ect.
Then take accept a number of volunteers from around the US and collaberate together on a single set of rules. Votes can be taken after discussion on each item.

Now you have a FAQ that can be posted on all the major websites and that a lot of the community can feel they helped create. Most people are more likely to accept a new rule if they have a say in it or at least were allowed to let their opinions known.

Timmah wrote:

Oh look, more conjecture and personal attacks. "Someone does not feel our FAQ is amazing, get him!"




So how exactly do 7 people represent people all across the US? 7 Tournament venues? Sure, but it is still one type of individual. The outspoken community manager type. This makes it not a good demographic of people.

Would you make a survey that was only sent to the 7 richest people in america and assume its results to be true for everyone?

Timmah wrote:I do not have a chip on my shoulder.

If you read my earlier posts, I said I would be happy if GW chose to officially support this FAQ. (using it for one tournament is not that) However until they do that it is just a bunch of house rulings. It will not be accept by the masses until either one of two things happen.

GW officially supports it.
A larger amount of the community has a say in it. (more than just dakka dakka)

If GW supported it for every one of their tournaments then it would be recognized as the official FAQ.

If a huge amount of the community had some (any) involvement in it, then they would accept it more readily for RTT events and such and it would become official.


As is, it is just a FAQ written by 7 people and used for 1 (now 2) tournaments. And is not used by the masses and is therefore not all that useful.


On the concept of bias, everyone has them. Me claiming that 7 individuals who wrote something have a bias based on who they are, is like me claiming their is water in the ocean.

I can't physically prove it, but everyone knows its true.
Now 7 people together might help to remove some of that, but it won't completely. Especially when all 7 people are basically the same demographic.

Timmah wrote:Sorry I think the message of my original argument was lost. (not to mention incorrectly labeled as ad hominem, suprise suprise.)


Anyways, the entire argument for this FAQ is that it was made by 7 very smart individuals who know the rules inside and out and came to a conclusion.
This is a logical fallacy. (different from ad hominem, yes there are other ones despite what the internets tell you)

This is an argument from authority fallacy. You are saying this FAQ is/should be legal rulings because it comes from a source that dakka believes is an authority.

I pointed out that the writers are not really an authority on the issue more than anyone else. But you may say, "oh they have judged multiple tournaments" Ok, do they have any formal judging training from GW? Nope, their rules knowledge comes from the exact same place everyone elses does. Reading the GW official FAQ's, the BRB and the codeci. No where else. GW does not have a formal training program for their judges or anything like that.

So as stated before the reason people are accepting this FAQ is in fact a fallacy and is incorrect reasoning.

I should have said that people could make a claim that it's the fox guarding the hen house. I think most of us would agree that there would be some controversy if a council member won this year. If none of the council members are playing then it's strictly a non issue.

I reread the INAT FAQ last night and I think it's a well written document. I am going to run a GT this fall and I am planning to use the INAT FAQ as a reference but not as an official document. It doesn't really take very long to read the sections that cover the rulebook and then you really only need to read the rules for the armies you feel that will be present and have the best chances of winning.

G

Nice job Polonius. I like it.

DarthDiggler wrote:Nice job Polonius. I like it.

I have many negative qualities. One of them is that it annoys the hell out of me when people try to change gears half way through an argument.

Orkestra wrote:
There's no difference. Honestly. How do you think they pick Tourney Judges? I assure you, it's not a gruelling 3-month program designed to expunge all traces of bias and humanity. It's reasonable people who the TO's know.

For transparency purposes: There are nine of us on the INAT team - Yakface - the main AdeptiCon rules judge and INAT coordinator, the (3) AdeptiCon executive council members, the (4) 40K tournament organizers for AdeptiCon and (2) of the main 40K rules judges. Centurian99 and I are a split team co-organizing the Gladiator.

Better to have a ruling tell me months in advance than to have that ruling during a game and quite possibly leaving a sour taste in one of the player's mouths.


Say what you want about Gwar, but atleast he looks at the rules with a bias towards RAW 100% of the time. I vote for Gwar to be in the next INAT FAQ council.


(yes you can sig that Gwar, its meant as a compliment.)

Inquisitor_Malice wrote:

Orkestra wrote:
There's no difference. Honestly. How do you think they pick Tourney Judges? I assure you, it's not a gruelling 3-month program designed to expunge all traces of bias and humanity. It's reasonable people who the TO's know.

For transparency purposes: There are nine of us on the INAT team - Yakface - the main AdeptiCon rules judge and INAT coordinator, the (3) AdeptiCon executive council members, the (4) 40K tournament organizers for AdeptiCon and (2) of the main 40K rules judges. Centurian99 and I are a split team co-organizing the Gladiator.

And yet you don't answer the concern. What gives your opinions on rules more authority than our opinions? Do you have extra training from GW? Its "reasonable" people that the TO knows. So most likely friends/volunteers ect. Again there are 7 (9 now?) who I would guess are all from basically the same demographic of people.

@Polonius
Pretty much the entire red part is me explaining how people have biases. Please go take a ethics course of any type and you will realize that everyone has biases when they have a stake (no matter how small) in something. Heck in business ethics if I even have a friend at a company I am auditing I will be moved to a different case. Pretending that someone who owns an entire army which they have spent hundreds of dollars/hours won't have any biases towards said army rules or rules that effect said army, is a complete joke.

@thehod

The problem I have with GW using this for 1 event is it will lead to situations like this:

Raw says this
INAT FAQ says this
INAT FAQ isn't official
INAT FAQ was used at 'ard boyz


Now how do you settle that? Both people have valid points and expectations.
Again, if GW makes it an official FAQ by adding it to their website as an official FAQ, that would be great. We would have a ton of rules questions easily answered. However they won't/haven't done this yet. So we will get situations like the one above.

Well, some of the read was admittedly running up the score, but the point was that you were full of it when you claim most of your posts were about improvement. most of the posts were you going on about bias.

And I don't plan on taking any classes of any sort for quite a while, thanks. There's a huge diffence between conflict of interest in the legal or business world and in a world of purely volunteer effort. The idea is that you can always find another person to take the job for money, but for volunteer work you should take the best people willing to do the job for free.

I also think you dramatically overstate the payoff. Let's say a council member has an eldar army, and pushes all intepretations in favor of eldar. That might help him (if he plays in a tournament that uses that FAQ), but also every other Eldar player. What's the payoff?

On the other hand, what's the harm?

Timmah wrote:
And yet you don't answer the concern. What gives your opinions on rules more authority than our opinions? Do you have extra training from GW? Its "reasonable" people that the TO knows. So most likely friends/volunteers ect. Again there are 7 (9 now?) who I would guess are all from basically the same demographic of people.

Timmah - The contributing parties to the INAT in no way have indicated that we have a more valid opinion than others including yourself. A method for creating the INAT team was developed, which was alluded to in my previous post (AdeptiCon executive council, Yakface-main INAT coordinator, AdeptiCon 40K TOs and some of the 40K rules judges). This process has been followed consistently over the years and it is just our method for team selection.

As far as demographics - the thing that binds us is we are volunteers with AdeptiCon, involved in the 40K community/gaming environment, and working professionals. Otherwise, we are a fairly diverse group including professional, geographical, political, personal interests and more.

What I recommend is to read the introduction in the INAT and it's final page. In summary, it is a document that can be used as a reference by any person, entity or event. If you wish to use it for yourself, great. If not - then so be it. The same goes for entities or events such as the ard Boyz team, store owners, gaming groups or independent events.

As a non tournament gamer, I see the INATFAQ as a great thing.

I do not have the dedication to 40k to do this
I do not have the rules knowledge of the basic rules to do this
I do not have the rules knowledge of the army books to do this
I do not have the tourney experience to know regional interpretations
Most of all, I do not have the time to devote to compiling a 100pg document

The INAT council have these things. Also they have YMDC as a resource of subjects that come up regularly.

I have been a member of Dakka in one form or another since it started, so I realize that Yakface knows his stuff when it comes to rules.

Widening the pool of the INAT would only dilute the decision making process. It is probably difficult enough getting 9 to agree on something.

As for there being bias, I do not know how that bias would affect any army without it being screamingly obvious to any one who read it.
A majority of the decisions made seem to follow the conventions most agree to in the rules forum here.

Timmah wrote:Again there are 7 (9 now?) who I would guess are all from basically the same demographic of people.

If you looked at the second page of the INAT where it says who the ruling council is, you would count 9 names. So I don't know where you got 7 from in the first place.

I can assure you, personally, that every member of the INAT Council knows that what is being worked on is bigger then themselves. The INAT is made with the only intent being to benefit the community as a whole.

As for GW adopting the INAT for the finial round and not before.. what rules did you go by before that? What did you do round 1 and 2 if you had a dispute that wasn't covered in the GW FAQ? Did you ask the individual(s) putting it on at that location for a ruling? If you did then you got a house ruling. At that, a ruling that is probably not at all consistent across all of the locations hosting rounds 1 and 2. And you got it without knowing before hand how said rule was going to be made. With GW taking on the INAT, they are giving you the opportunity to know ahead of time how certain issues are going to be ruled. Not to minimalize rounds 1 and 2, but for the 3rd an finial round im sure those going surely appreciate knowing ahead of time they will be getting as few surprises as possible if something comes up.

It takes 9 people hours upon hours to go over rules contentions. Adding more people to the mix makes the process take even longer. There comes a point when you have to say you are comfortable with the number of people and their mindset in regards to making something beneficial to the community over personal interest.

As for saying some things go clearly against the RAW of a rule, I say it depends on your interpretation. Using the Bible as an example, how many different groups of people read the exact same words but come away with totally different ideas of what exactly is being said? Its no different then with the rules of this game. If RAW was ever so clear, no one would be making a INAT, a GW FAQ or a YMDC on Dakka over issues. But interpretations differ, wording isn't precise and so a group of people stepped up to the plate and put something out there for people to use. For their own reasons, GW decided that something is pretty darn good overall, and they want to use for their event.

You do know that GW when they wrote their FAQs actually overruled some of the rules made up by the adepticon organisers? And still thanked Yak etc.

GW UK/Europe doesnt use it, so it cant be that official.

However it is organised it should be the same rules over the full event, not houserules round #1 in someplaces and all of the sudden a full FAQ.

Inquisitor_Malice wrote:

Timmah wrote:
And yet you don't answer the concern. What gives your opinions on rules more authority than our opinions? Do you have extra training from GW? Its "reasonable" people that the TO knows. So most likely friends/volunteers ect. Again there are 7 (9 now?) who I would guess are all from basically the same demographic of people.

Timmah - The contributing parties to the INAT in no way have indicated that we have a more valid opinion than others including yourself. A method for creating the INAT team was developed, which was alluded to in my previous post (AdeptiCon executive council, Yakface-main INAT coordinator, AdeptiCon 40K TOs and some of the 40K rules judges). This process has been followed consistently over the years and it is just our method for team selection.

As far as demographics - the thing that binds us is we are volunteers with AdeptiCon, involved in the 40K community/gaming environment, and working professionals. Otherwise, we are a fairly diverse group including professional, geographical, political, personal interests and more.

What I recommend is to read the introduction in the INAT and it's final page. In summary, it is a document that can be used as a reference by any person, entity or event. If you wish to use it for yourself, great. If not - then so be it. The same goes for entities or events such as the ard Boyz team, store owners, gaming groups or independent events.

And here is the problem. By being used at 'ard boyz it is being forced upon us.

By your own admission it is no more valid than any of our opinions of certain rules. Yet by GW using it for 1 event they are going to bring up huge amounts of debates over whether it is considered official for other tournaments or not.

Hence my belief that they need to use it for everything or nothing.


@marius xerxes
I was told 7 by one of the people in this thread.

Also there are things in it that very clearly go against RAW. Check out kallbrand's response, notice some of the GW official FAQ's went against what adepticon had to say.

Timmah wrote:And here is the problem. By being used at 'ard boyz it is being forced upon us.

No, it isn't. No-one is foricing you to play in the 'Ard Boyz. If you hate the FAQ so much, don't play.

It is a good FAQ..much more concise than GWs...I live on the other side of the world and we here use the adepticon FAQ as it clarifies things a LOT....

Gwar! wrote:

Timmah wrote:And here is the problem. By being used at 'ard boyz it is being forced upon us.

No, it isn't. No-one is foricing you to play in the 'Ard Boyz. If you hate the FAQ so much, don't play.

Oh sorry, that tournament that I prepared for by winning 2 others... I just won't go.

Gwar! have you read the adepticon FAQ? Would you agree that there are some pretty sketchy interpretations of RAW and even some times its just ignored?

Timmah wrote:Oh sorry, that tournament that I prepared for by winning 2 others... I just won't go.

Well, you obviously feel strongly about this. You should make a stand and not go.

Gwar! have you read the adepticon FAQ?

No, I haven't it is of no interest to me </Sarcasm>

Would you agree that there are some pretty sketchy interpretations of RAW and even some times its just ignored?

My Only problem with it is the use of "Clarification" on some Rule Changes, but all in all it is a excelent document. I have yet to see you come up with something comparable.

Inquisitor_Malice wrote:

Timmah wrote:
And yet you don't answer the concern. What gives your opinions on rules more authority than our opinions? Do you have extra training from GW? Its "reasonable" people that the TO knows. So most likely friends/volunteers ect. Again there are 7 (9 now?) who I would guess are all from basically the same demographic of people.

Timmah - The contributing parties to the INAT in no way have indicated that we have a more valid opinion than others including yourself. A method for creating the INAT team was developed, which was alluded to in my previous post (AdeptiCon executive council, Yakface-main INAT coordinator, AdeptiCon 40K TOs and some of the 40K rules judges). This process has been followed consistently over the years and it is just our method for team selection.

As far as demographics - the thing that binds us is we are volunteers with AdeptiCon, involved in the 40K community/gaming environment, and working professionals. Otherwise, we are a fairly diverse group including professional, geographical, political, personal interests and more.

What I recommend is to read the introduction in the INAT and it's final page. In summary, it is a document that can be used as a reference by any person, entity or event. If you wish to use it for yourself, great. If not - then so be it. The same goes for entities or events such as the ard Boyz team, store owners, gaming groups or independent events.

Nevertheless, I thank you Inquisitor Malice and the adepticon folks for the effort for the INAT FAQ..keep it up..and it really DOES help clarify a lot of things in a logical way.....

Can I ask a question? Why don't DA narciums work against cover saves on vehicles in the FAQ?

I guess the wording of "any save" isn't clear enough?

Not to mention multiple "clarifications" on how weapons are mounted that completely disagree with what GW has said. (landspeeder underslung weapons are hull mounted according to the FAQ and pintle mounted according to GW)

Sorry but there is just too many changes to rules for me to accept this.

Do I agree with a lot of it? Yes, for sure, very nice clarifications and all. But when they just blatantly change rules for a game, I guess I don't want to sign on.

Timmah wrote:Can I ask a question? Why don't DA narciums work against cover saves on vehicles in the FAQ?

I guess the wording of "any save" isn't clear enough?

Because at the time the Rule was written, it did not help vehicles. By Strict RaW, now it does. To be fair, they labeled this correctly.

Not to mention multiple "clarifications" on how weapons are mounted that completely disagree with what GW has said. (landspeeder underslung weapons are hull mounted according to the FAQ and pintle mounted according to GW)

No, GW do not say what the weapon is. All the "official" FAQ says is "look how it is mounted"

Don't worry Timmah, BA exsanguinators still work for cover saves, so you can give your Rhino a blood transfusion and it'll be fine.

Gwar! wrote:

Timmah wrote:Can I ask a question? Why don't DA narciums work against cover saves on vehicles in the FAQ?

I guess the wording of "any save" isn't clear enough?

Because at the time the Rule was written, it did not help vehicles. By Strict RaW, now it does. To be fair, they labeled this correctly.

So they get to form an opinion based on when the rule was written and such? This isn't consistant through the FAQ. Nemesis force weapons still ignore instant death even though they changed how it works.

Too many inconsistancies on how rulings are decided upon.

We get it already. You don't like it. It's going to be used at 'ard boyz, so either deal or don't go. Ranting here isn't changing this, and we already understand that you're unhappy.

My bad, I thought I was allowed to discuss it here. I am far from ranting. I am pointing out what I dislike about it and was discussing ways it could be made better.

Sorry if I made fun of dakka dakkas 40k bible or w/e.

Btw I never said I didn't like it as a whole. I was pointing out the few problems I had with it. (did you only read my last 2 posts or something?)

You're not discussing anything though, you're simply restating the same thing over and over. I agree with some of your points. Simply repeating them ad nauseum isn't going to make anything change, and certainly not before 'ard boyz.

And, yes, you can bring up all sorts of specific examples that you dislike. I can too, there are specific rulings I dislike in there as well. That doesn't change the fact that it is better to know how those rulings will be applied before you go to a tournament, as opposed to finding out when they happen.

OK, I'm going to try and lay things out here for people. I don't expect to actually change anyone's mind, and probably some of the things have been pointed out by the other members of the INAT committee who've posted here, but maybe it'll do some good.

About three years ago, it became obvious to some of us who were involved with AdeptiCon that GW had absolutely zero interest in creating a tight ruleset, or in supporting that ruleset with timely FAQs. This was straight from people at the Games Dev studio. And to be honest, the Games Dev studio has no interest in really writing rules with an eye towards tournament play - their ideal of game design involves narrative games between friends where grey areas in the rules are worked out amicably with the end result of a good story, as opposed to a tight ruleset that will ensure that both players are on the same page from the get-go.

Honestly, for the most part - this works. I won't say that it works well, but especially when you're talking about games between a regular group of friends, who have a common understanding of local conventions, many gray areas or contradictions in the rules are resolve amicably, and become a sort of local precedent that guides play. New players generally don't learn the rules by studying the rules - they learn the rules by playing the game with more experienced players, who teach the rules in a sort of ad-hoc manner. And again, to be honest - this mostly works.

Where it breaks down, however, is when the local conventions come into conflict. This generally ONLY happens in tournament play, and generally only in major tournaments, like AdeptiCon, GT's, The Necro, etc. In those venues, you've got players from different regions, with different assumptions and interpretations about how the rules work, and these conflicts have to be resolved. At AdeptiCon, for years this was resolved with in-game rulings. But as AdeptiCon continued to grow and attendees were no longer limited to the Midwest, we discovered that there were fundamental differences in the way that people interpreted the rules. To give you an example, how you played the old LOS issue (with magic cylinders for those who were involved in the hobby back then) largely depended on where you were. Some places used the magic cylinder standard, some used true LOS, but those interpretations really didn't come into conflict until people from different areas met and played each other.

Obviously, both sides thought they were right. And the quickest way to have an unfun game is to have the issue come up in the middle of a game, have a judge rule against you, and then feel as though the judges ruling determined the outcome of the game.

So we decided to form our own AdeptiCon FAQ. Originally, the council simply consisted of the tournament organizers for each of the 40K events. They discussed rulings, put them to a vote, and wrote up the whole thing in a document, which was posted prior to the event, so that players could come knowing what to expect. I got brought on late in the game on the first FAQ, because the original committee was an even number, and they needed someone to break ties. So while I got listed as being on the committee, I probably only ruled on a dozen or so questions.

The second year, Yakface joined the committee, because honestly, his YakFAQ was simply the most comprehensive thing we'd seen and in terms of the questions asked and organization was simply superior to our first effort. This is (I think) our third year, and we've gotten a fairly decent procedure going for how we put the thing together. It's not perfect, but it doesn't need to be - it simply needs to fulfil our main goal: letting tournament players know how judges will rule on various issues that may pop up when you play people who are used to playing differently than you. That's why the majority of the INAT members are tournament organizers. The non-organizer members include Yakface (who's got a ridiculous eye for detail and seeing the big picture in terms of how rulings in one area affect other areas) and two people who originally weren't involved with AdeptiCon at all.

The vast majority of the INAT consists of clarifications. Some may quibble on that, claiming that RAW is involved, or changing the rules. But the simple fact is that GW seems to specialize in writing ambiguous rules. Moreover, they seem to specialize in writing rules that interact ambiguously. GW doesn't logically construct their ruleset, with clear rules of logic, classification, and definition. Their attempts to do so have actually, in some ways, INCREASED the confusion in their rules. And to be honest, clarifications should make up the bulk of a rules FAQ, especially in a ruleset like 40K.

RAW is the second-most common justification. I know there are those who argue that RAW should always be the default, but the fact is that when you're talking about the interaction of various rules in 40K, the RAW often leaves you with ambiguous, nonsensical, or even unplayable outcomes. RAW is great when only one rule is in question...but when multiple rules are interacting, problems start arising. In those situations...something's got to give. The principles of "The specific overriding the general" and "Break no rule" apply...but those principles are in themselves somewhat contradictory. It's not always clear which rule is more specific, or when you're breaking a rule instead of properly overriding it, etc.

Rules changes and FAQ overrules are the most rare justifications. Basically, they come into play when the situation (or an immediate event caused by RAW) essentially renders the game unplayable. Yes that's a judgement call. Yes, you might disagree with it. Guess what...it's probably likely that 1/3 to just under 1/2 of the council agrees with you. While probably 75-85% of the questions end up being decided unanimously, the remaining 15-25% get discussed to DEATH. Finally we vote. In the cases where we do vote, the split is usually something like 5-4 or 6-3.

We try to consider all the angles, come up with rulings that are consistent in analgous situations, but in the end, it comes down to our judgement, based on our experience of playing in and running tournaments and our reading of the rules, to come up with an answer. Sometimes its unanimous. Sometimes its not. Regardless...we have an answer, one that can be published ahead of time. so that everyone comes knowing how something's supposed to be played. The purpose isn't to give one player an advantage over the other. The purpose is to avoid in-game rules conflicts.

Heck, its a running joke amongst the committee that I'm probably the most overruled person on the committee. But even in the cases where I'm overruled - I can live with it. Because if I'm playing in a tournament that uses the INAT, I know going in what to expect. That's worth having rulings that I occassionally disagree with.

Centurian,

Thats great, I whole heartedly agree that it is a wonderful way to help run your tournament smoothly. If I was attending adepticon (might this year) I would happily live with these rules and not complain. Adepticon is a independantly run event and they can do whatever they want.

However I would hope you see my concern with GW using an independant FAQ for 1 of their events. (again as I said, if GW accepted it as official and made it an official FAQ I would have no problems at all with it)

However, as I believe you would agree there are certain rule changes away from RAW (heck the notes in the front say this) in it as well as certain things that are different from GW's official FAQ. So by GW supporting this FAQ once, it brings up a couple different problem scenarios.

At the event, does the GW FAQ take precedence over the INAT FAQ when they differ? Both are "official" for the event.

For future events sponsored by GW, are people allowed to reference the INAT FAQ?


Do I have a problem with some of the rules? Ofc, I think everyone does. However that is not what my concern is about.

Timmeh, you have some valid points.
1. It’s not official. Truth be told, some people are always going to be happier with something that comes direct from GW, no matter whether its quality is superior or inferior to something unofficial. Okay. We get that.
2. It’s being brought into use mid-event. Yup. It would be better if they had gone ahead and adopted it before ‘ard boyz started, for consistency. That would be nice.

As for all your going on and on about bias (and by the way, a person “is biased”, not “is bias”), you’re confusing two different things. One is the totally reasonable and realistic observation that every human being has some bias in their thinking. But that fact by itself proves nothing. You are making a leap of logic from there, into implying or outright accusing people of having a damaging and prejudicial bias, which actually causes harm.

I’m sorry that you feel attacked, but you are casting negative aspersions on people who have invested a great deal of time and effort into producing great things for the community, on (IMO) extremely flimsy and ill-conceived grounds. If you want accusations of harmful bias to be taken seriously, as opposed to being dismissed as ad hominem attacks, you have to show the harm. Prove the point. Polonius contested this issue several pages ago.

The facts are that this FAQ is a great piece of work, and the logistical hurdles that had to be crossed to come up with it are non-trivial.

From experience in volunteerism and in group organization, many of the responders to this thread are incredulous that any larger and more representative group is really available, and capable of being organized into producing something even AS GOOD as the INAT FAQ, much less something that will represent a significant advance, and won’t just be dismissed as unofficial and non-representative, the exact way you’re doing (and some others have done in the past) with the INAT FAQ.

Now, addressing the arguments of yours which (IMO) have merit:

1. I think most of us would like GW to do something better and more comprehensive with their FAQs. That said, we can’t force them to do so. In point of fact, the ones they give us have often been of spotty quality. Many times they leave critical and wide-ranging questions unanswered (like the question of characters on larger bases attached to units in Warhammer, and how they interact with rank bonus). A number of times they have actually violated the RAW on questions which were relatively clear within the rules. Overall, IMO, the INAT FAQ is a much better product than we are ever likely to see GW produce. We’re very fortunate to have it. Would it be nice if GW officially adopted it, and we could get this level of consistency in tournaments worldwide? Sure. But I suspect that there may be good reasons for GW not to do so, from a corporate perspective. They may have something to do with employment law and copyright law. Maybe not.
2. There are two likely reasons for this. 1, That they just didn’t think of it. Remember, Trade Sales organizers ‘Ard Boyz. It’s not even their primary tournament-organizing guys. Someone may have just raised the idea, and they said “you know, that might help make this thing a little more organized and consistent. Go for it.” 2. That their expectations for local organizers are low. IME many store owners are not rules gurus. While a lot of them do know the rules well, many great store owners and event organizers are not particularly up on even GW’s own in-house FAQs. Much less a 96 page addendum. They may have just resigned themselves to inconsistences in the local (and even regional) rounds, figuring that they’re unavoidable.

Timmah,
What good do you expect to accomplish by complaining about the Adepticon FAQ being used at 'ard Boyz here?

The people at Games Workshop running the event decided to use the FAQ, and presumably at this point have decided which version of the FAQ as well. No one here is in any position to do anything about that. Can you seriously be expecting that the FAQ council will be so moved by the injustice of your situation that they will contact GW and ask that the FAQ not be used?

It is a testament to how much the people who work on the FAQ care and are concerned with being fair that they are even listening to your complaints. It will be a testament to Dakka Dakka's ignore filter that I won't have to read your posts again.

Timmah wrote:
However I would hope you see my concern with GW using an independant FAQ for 1 of their events. (again as I said, if GW accepted it as official and made it an official FAQ I would have no problems at all with it)

However, as I believe you would agree there are certain rule changes away from RAW (heck the notes in the front say this) in it as well as certain things that are different from GW's official FAQ. So by GW supporting this FAQ once, it brings up a couple different problem scenarios.

At the event, does the GW FAQ take precedence over the INAT FAQ when they differ? Both are "official" for the event.

For future events sponsored by GW, are people allowed to reference the INAT FAQ?

You're making a bunch of assumptions:
1) That the GW GDS (games development studio) wants to create their own comprehensive FAQ,
2) That the GW GDS wants to put any kind of official stamp on a FAQ with the breadth of the INAT,
3) That the GW GDS would listen to players if we asked, pleaded, or begged for one
4) That GWNA trade sales (who run the Ard Boyz) can get the Games Dev Studio in the UK to produce a similarly thorough document.
5) That GWNA trade sales can create a document like that on their own, or that they have any desire to do so, or would do so if enough people asked for it.

Those are just the ones I'm IDing off the top of my head.

GW isn't some mom and pop operation. They're a multinational business thats vertically integrated but with an extremely compartmentalized operational structure.

To answer your last questions - the answer, as always, is that its ultimately up to the tournament organizer.

For the record, I do not have a problem with the FAQ. (well I do with some of it, but thats not my point of "complaint" in this thread)

My problem is with the way that GW is implementing the use of this FAQ for this one event.
Can you really not see the logistical nightmare of supporting different FAQ's/rulesets for different events with the same game?

For the record, if I agreed with every single ruling in the FAQ and thought it was amazing, I would still feel the same way about their implementation of it.

Btw, all of my posts on biases never once mentioned anything malicious. I was just pointing out how people can be unintentionally bias towards something. I don't believe I ever attacked the writers claiming they were idiots or were just writing rules to benefit the armies they owned.

It's a little known fact that Karl Rove -and- David Axelrod are Double Sooper Sekret members of the INAT FAQ Council.

Also, I think Centurian99's points go further and prove why we will never see a GW FAQ.

GW GDS doesn't want it as it would prove that their system is flawed. Their position is that the system is being used outside its intended purpose, and that causes it to have the problems it experiences. It's not a case of the rifle not being bent, its a case of the shooter not knowing how to shoot.

As GW GDS doesn't want an FAQ, no ammount of GWNA screaming, begging, conjolling, or overt sexual favors will get them a "GW" FAQ for their big tourney, and they know they need one. So, they grab the next best tool.

It honestly doesn't matter what the next "big, official" GW event uses as an FAQ. What does matter is that Ard Boyzz round 3 will be using the INAT. That does not indicate "approval" or convey any official status, not should it expect to do that in the future. People that think it does are putting carts in front of horses.

Timmah wrote:For the record, I do not have a problem with the FAQ. (well I do with some of it, but thats not my point of "complaint" in this thread)

My problem is with the way that GW is implementing the use of this FAQ for this one event.
Can you really not see the logistical nightmare of supporting different FAQ's/rulesets for different events with the same game?

My point is simply that your "logistical nightmare" is simply the situation as it already exists. The fact that the people running the Ard Boyz finals decided to use the INAT and publicized this ahead of time makes not difference whatsoever.

Timmah wrote:
My problem is with the way that GW is implementing the use of this FAQ for this one event.
Can you really not see the logistical nightmare of supporting different FAQ's/rulesets for different events with the same game?

.

yes, dropping it into a multi-round tourney is a bit of problem, however, its no differnet fundamentally to the use of the "new" SM codex in the final round last yer.

And it is no more a logistical nightmare than 50 seperate sites going by "judges decision is final", other than right now, you know what the judges decision will be. Your problem is with the GW ruleset and its inability to remain logically consistant and its, at times, "loose" use of the English language.

"Unintentionally biasED". [/grammar nazi]

have the IG rules been posted in the newest version yet?

broxus wrote:have the IG rules been posted in the newest version yet?

No, not yet.

Agree or not with the use of the adepticon FAQ it is however required that 40k tournaments use a SINGLE ERRATA

This is a huge step forward to having legit tournaments

So I am not sure if anyone has answered this yet.

What happens at round 3 of ard boyz when the INAT FAQ and the official GW FAQ differ? Which one gets the nod as the official ruling?

Seems like it would be important to know how specific rules are going to work.

Could you point out a conflict between them?

First paragraph of the INAT FAQ:

This FAQ is a completely 100% independent (unofficial) Q&A list for the game of Warhammer 40,000 5th
edition. It isn’t meant to replace the Games Workshop official FAQs (which can be downloaded from:
www.games-workshop.com) in any way, and in fact the issues addressed by the GW FAQs aren’t included in
this document.

Mannahnin wrote:and in fact the issues addressed by the GW FAQs aren’t included in this document.

Well Played Sir!

I know for one, that weapon mounts on vehicles like landspeeders, falcons are addressed in both.

The GW FAQ says they can rotate 360 degrees. The INAT FAQ says they are counted as hull mounted.

Which of these will be considered correct? As well as any other unforseen rules that have conflicting entries in both.

Timmah wrote:I know for one, that weapon mounts on vehicles like landspeeders, falcons are addressed in both.

The GW FAQ says they can rotate 360 degrees. The INAT FAQ says they are counted as hull mounted.

Which of these will be considered correct? As well as any other unforseen rules that have conflicting entries in both.

What GW FAQ says they can see 360 degrees? The rulebook one says that a Weapon is considered Mounted how it is on the model, nothing more. The INAT FAQ says that the weapon on a stock model is Hull Mounted.

Gwar! wrote:

Timmah wrote:I know for one, that weapon mounts on vehicles like landspeeders, falcons are addressed in both.

The GW FAQ says they can rotate 360 degrees. The INAT FAQ says they are counted as hull mounted.

Which of these will be considered correct? As well as any other unforseen rules that have conflicting entries in both.

What GW FAQ says they can see 360 degrees? The rulebook one says that a Weapon is considered Mounted how it is on the model, nothing more. The INAT FAQ says that the weapon on a stock model is Hull Mounted.

Maybe it is the rulebook that says it, but it states that when a weapon is not given a mounting, it is considered Mounted how it is on the model. It goes on to say that if it looks like the weapon can spin in place, it is allowed even if it is glued down. Like weapons underneath a landspeeder. I'll try and find the passage for you.


Here is the exact FAQ ruling:

Q. On page 59, the rules for the arc of fire of pintle-mounted (or bolt-on) weapons address those mounted on turrets and those mounted directly on the hull. But what about those mounted on smaller structures (like a Rhino’s cupola) that look like they can rotate 360º, even though they aren’t proper turrets?

A. Remember that the rule is: if it looks like you can point the gun at it, then you can, even if it’s glued in place’. The rest is just a set of guidelines about the arcs of fire of weapons glued in place, and does not cover all possible weapons mounting and vehicles. If the structure the gun is pintle-mounted on is obviously capable of rotating 360º, like in the case of a Rhino’s cupola, then it should be treated as having a 360º arc of fire. However, if you mount the same storm bolter on a Razorback, even though it still can rotate 360º, it won’t obviously be able to fire through the Razorback’s main turret, and so it will have a ‘blind spot’. In the same way, the shuriken catapult mounted under the hull of a Wave Serpent, Falcon, etc. looks like it can rotate 360º, but it does not look like it can be fired through the main hull right behind it, so we normally play that it can be fired roughly in the 180º to the vehicle’s front, which seems like an acceptable compromise.

Relatively new Dakka-ite here. In some sense, I came here because of the INAT FAQ. I heard about it through 40K Radio, and went to check it out. Voila! Many of the arguments amongst my friends were immediately taken care of due to there being an answer. (Anecdotal Argument for those keeping score with that sub-thread)

While I don't play/know enough to feel that I could give great rulings, I note that Yakface is seeking submissions from those that do for the new Imperial Guard. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/237521.page That sounds like a place that some volunteerism can take place. While answers are not being sought from the membership as a whole, it's a starting place.

If you want to put out some of your opinion on rules, then post them in YMDC. Seems to be a natural place. Bring up the problems you have with the FAQ, and hopefull the Adepticon Council will look at it.

I have faith in my fellow gamers to want to run a good tournament. That faith is born out of seeing well-organized, fair tournaments get bigger year after year. Tournaments that seem to be based on poor judgement calls will malinger as long as their prize support will draw in those that are willing to WAAC.

Having tossed in my two bits about the INAT FAQ and tourneys as a whole, I have to agree with Timmah adding the FAQ as an official ruleset mid round (as was adding the new SM codex last year) was a bad move. Granted, we are less likely to see the fiasco that occurred last year, it does portend its own issues. Hopefully, they'll get around to getting it right, but I don't put much faith in that happening.

If you're going to critique the INAT (which we welcome) please try to make your critiques relevant to the actual rules. You have to look at everything and how they interact. That's the biggest problem with lots of people who try to follow the RAW as strictly as possible (including myself). A single rule is almost never a problem when it comes to RAW. But the interaction of that rule with another rule, using RAW, can create...issues.

To use your example of vehicle mounted weapons...let's start by quoting all the relevant rules:

40K Rulebook:

On some models it will be actually impossible to literally move the gun and point it towards the target, because of the way the model is assembled or because the gun has been glued in place. In this case, players should assume that the guns on a vehicle are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings. In order to make clear how much any gun is supposed to rotate, refer to the vehicle’s entry, where each weapon has been classified
as either turret-mounted, pintle-mounted (or ‘bolt-on’), sponson-mounted or hull-mounted. Then apply the following guidelines:
• Turret-mounted weapons can usually rotate 360º, together with the entire turret, unless the design of the model prevents this.
• Hull-mounted weapons can fire in a 45º arc from their mounting point (see diagram).
• Sponson-mounted weapons vary greatly, as some can cover the full 180º of the flank they are mounted on (or even slightly more), while others are more limited. This is determined by the shape and position of the sponson’s mounting (see diagrams).
• Pintle-mounted (or bolt-on) weapons can either fire in a 360º arc, if they are mounted on the vehicle’s turret; or can fire in a 45º arc from their mounting point, if they are mounted on the vehicle’s hull.

And from the FAQ:

Q. On page 59, the rules for the arc of fire of pintle-mounted (or bolt-on) weapons address those mounted on turrets and those mounted
directly on the hull. But what about those mounted on smaller structures (like a Rhino’s cupola) that look like they can rotate 360º, even though they aren’t proper turrets?
A. Remember that the rule is: if it looks like you can point the gun at it, then you can, even if it’s glued in place’. The rest is just a set of guidelines
about the arcs of fire of weapons glued in place, and does not cover all possible weapons mounting and vehicles. If the structure the gun is pintle-mounted on is obviously capable of rotating 360º, like in the case of a Rhino’s cupola, then it should be treated as having a 360º arc of fire. However, if you mount the same storm bolter on a Razorback, even though it still can rotate 360º, it won’t obviously be able to fire through the Razorback’s main turret, and so it will have a ‘blind spot’. In the same way, the shuriken catapult mounted under the hull of a Wave Serpent, Falcon, etc. looks like it can rotate 360º, but it does not look like it can be fired through the main hull right behind it, so we normally play that it can be fired roughly in the 180º to the vehicle’s front, which seems like an acceptable compromise.

Now, lets look at the INAT...which brings this up only tangentially. The actual rules on p59 are never addressed in the INAT, because the GW FAQ already does it. What the INAT addresses is something that GW hasn't addressed...just what weapons are pintle mounted, what are sponson mounted, which are hull mounted, and what are turret mounted on each fricking vehicle in the game. Why is this important? There's a bunch of reasons, but the primary one - we want to encourage the creativity and modeling skills of people in the hobby, but at the same time, "modelling for an in-game benefit" is now a big no-no in 5th edition. So the only thing we do is define what category each vehicle's weapons fall into. Not because it isn't blisteringly obvious...but because once its written down, a tournament organizer than has an objective standard to point to and say, "as long as this model you've converted to represent your predator annihilator has a twin-las in a turret, and two lascannon sponsons, you're golden."

The INAT is actually designed not to override FAQs. IIRC, there was a single instance of a FAQ overrule in a previous 4th-ed version (I can't remember exactly what it was, but it was something where the FAQ essentially contradicted the rules in a very ambiguous situation in a way that actually made the situation much, much worse).

There's a ridiculous amount of thought that goes behind each question, because we've really tried hard to look at the various implications and consequences of interpretting rules in different manners. We just usually don't write it down because the doc is just too long as it is. We'll be making a slight exception when we release the new version this week (with IG included), partially to help assuage the naysayers, but mainly because the Valkyrie/Vendetta rules, once we got into it, just opened so many cans of worms that it wasn't even funny. Probably about 25% of our time on this revision covered a half-dozen questions that involved Valkyries. Argh.

Easy way to fix valkyries

"Use skimmer bases"

Kirasu wrote:Easy way to fix valkyries

"Use skimmer bases"

Not quite that simple. First, I'll assume you're talking about the base supplied with the model, because we all know that you're supposed to use the base supplied with the model.

Now...you've got a model who's access points are way more than 2" away from the ground, thus making it RAW impossible to deploy troops from them except by its own special funky DS rule.
You've got a model that is, by some interpretations, too high to actually claim or contest objectives.
You've got a squadron of models that, though they have the DS rule, are unable to DS as a squadron because placing them in base to base is impossible.

This doesn't even get into the potential issues that came up when we considered destroyed/immobilized valks and what happens, weapons use, deploying troops underneath it (because its got access points directly underneath its own fricking wings and tail booms, what constitutes the "hull" of the valk for rules purposes...

Centurian99 wrote:
Now, lets look at the INAT...which brings this up only tangentially. The actual rules on p59 are never addressed in the INAT, because the GW FAQ already does it. What the INAT addresses is something that GW hasn't addressed...just what weapons are pintle mounted, what are sponson mounted, which are hull mounted, and what are turret mounted on each fricking vehicle in the game. Why is this important? There's a bunch of reasons, but the primary one - we want to encourage the creativity and modeling skills of people in the hobby, but at the same time, "modelling for an in-game benefit" is now a big no-no in 5th edition. So the only thing we do is define what category each vehicle's weapons fall into. Not because it isn't blisteringly obvious...but because once its written down, a tournament organizer than has an objective standard to point to and say, "as long as this model you've converted to represent your predator annihilator has a twin-las in a turret, and two lascannon sponsons, you're golden."

So in effect the INAT is making rules for us. If I am understanding what you are saying. GW did address this in that if the weapon does not says it is a certain mount, then you just do whatever the gun can see.

Either way, my question still stands. How will this be ruled at ard boyz? Will any non categorized mount be used per pg 59 and whatever it could potentially see be allowed or will the FAQ be used and my landspeeders only be able to fire their bottom mounted weapon in a 45% arc forward?

Timmah wrote:What happens at round 3 of ard boyz when the INAT FAQ and the official GW FAQ differ? Which one gets the nod as the official ruling?

Given that the GW site states, "For the Finals Ard Boyz will utilize the Adeptus Windy City 40k FAQ," I imagine they'll just use that.

This is a great move by GW. The outright BS that occurred in last year's final and the outright BS that has occurred this year merit a strong intervention in the finals so it does not become a debacle. The attitude of many participants in 'Ard Boyz has been, "let's see what I can get away with..." Adopting this FAQ will curtail this and give the honest gamers a fair shot.

Timmah, you obviously are failing to grasp the intent of the rule here. The INAT rule was made so Joe Iron Warrior could go ahead and make his mini-scorpion looking vinidcator with the cannon in the tail, but recognizes that he cannot gain any advantage from having a potentially 360 degree firing demolisher cannon.

No one on dakka can answer your "question" because no one on dakka, that I am aware of, is judging the 3rd rd Ard Boyz. Your situation will rely on the judge on site deciding if the landspeeder flamer qualifies as on of those ambiguously mounted weapons that would pull in the FAQ decision. He could just as easily say its hull mounted. No one knows, and expecting an answer from here is flat out foolish. You can try to "bully" an answer out of dakka, but it doesn't mean squat.

Personally, I would go in with the idea that he would rule against me and plan accordingly.

Timmah wrote:
Either way, my question still stands. How will this be ruled at ard boyz? Will any non categorized mount be used per pg 59 and whatever it could potentially see be allowed or will the FAQ be used and my landspeeders only be able to fire their bottom mounted weapon in a 45% arc forward?

I'm not judging the ard boyz - since I'll be playing in it - so I can't answer your question. But since GW announced they're using the INAT FAQ, I'd assume that means that they'll use the INAT FAQ.

But from a purely theoretical perspective, the land speeder model mounts the bottom weapon in a fixed forward position. It's not like a pintle mounted storm bolter on a rhino, or the shuricats on the falcon (given as examples). Those obviously rotate 360...indeed, it doesn't take any special effort to model them to do so.

The land speeder, on the other hand, has its bottom weapon fixed forward. That would seem to indicate "hull" to me.

See, here's another assumption you're making: that the default arc of fire is 360, and since the SM Codex doesn't define what the weapon's arc of fire is, you get 360 degrees. You can make that assumption, but if you're opponent disagrees, he's going to think you're trying to take advantage of him by doing so.

Anyway, back to the question of why define things that GW left undefined in the codexes? That leads to another assumption - that GW left them undefined because they want you to be able to take fullest advantage of the holes that leaves you. Or you can make the assumption that GW left them undefined because A) they only created those categories in 5th and some of the codexes stretch back to 3rd and B) they're just lazy rules writers and figure that people will "figure out the answer amicably amongst themselves." One of those assumptions is based off stuff GW GD staff had said in interviews - the other is a bit narcissistic.

Here's a basic principle of rules interpretation and good sportsmanship - when given 2 or more possible ways to interpret a rule, always choose the one that's least advantageous to the action taker.

Centurian99 wrote:
Here's a basic principle of rules interpretation and good sportsmanship - when given 2 or more possible ways to interpret a rule, always choose the one that's least advantageous to the action taker.

Sorry but that is a terrible way of interpreting rules.

So if I ever claim that my unit has a cover save then I am always right? Since you are the one shooting...


Anyways I am through with this thread its obvious that the INAT FAQ is dakka's baby and they won't even admit that there are problems with it.

Also, you mentioned earlier that I could give constructive criticism of the FAQ earlier. Where exactly would I do that? With plans to attend adepticon possibly next year I would at least like to pretend my concerns are heard about their ruleset.

Timmah wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:
Here's a basic principle of rules interpretation and good sportsmanship - when given 2 or more possible ways to interpret a rule, always choose the one that's least advantageous to the action taker.

Sorry but that is a terrible way of interpreting rules.

So if I ever claim that my unit has a cover save then I am always right? Since you are the one shooting...

If you're claiming a cover save, you're the one taking an action. You really need to study up on logic.

Anyways I am through with this thread its obvious that the INAT FAQ is dakka's baby and they won't even admit that there are problems with it.

Also, you mentioned earlier that I could give constructive criticism of the FAQ earlier. Where exactly would I do that? With plans to attend adepticon possibly next year I would at least like to pretend my concerns are heard about their ruleset.

INAT's not Dakka's baby. If anything, It's AdeptiCon's, as the majority of the council are AdeptiCon tournament organizers. But there's usually a comment thread here on Dakka, and all comments are reviewed. Please note, that doesn't mean that all comments result in changes to the way things have been ruled - as I said before, the discussions behind each answer given can sometimes be quite complex, and we've always tried to consider multiple answers and their consequences for each question.

Centurian99 wrote:

Timmah wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:
Here's a basic principle of rules interpretation and good sportsmanship - when given 2 or more possible ways to interpret a rule, always choose the one that's least advantageous to the action taker.

Sorry but that is a terrible way of interpreting rules.

So if I ever claim that my unit has a cover save then I am always right? Since you are the one shooting...

If you're claiming a cover save, you're the one taking an action. You really need to study up on logic.

My bad, then as long as my opponent disagrees with me, I never get a cover save...


Can I ask this question then:

What is the reasoning behind changing rules from what they actually are?
I realize sometimes it is a necessity like with Vendetta rules. But with rules that don't have any ramifications whatsoever being changed, I am wondering why they decide to change these rules?

I think the better way to phrase the rule is that in a genuine rules controversy, in which both sides can make a compelling argument, a good default rule is to not allow the contested action.

Taking a cover save is a bad example, because that's a difference of facts in the game, not of the rules.

Redbeard wrote:You're not discussing anything though, you're simply restating the same thing over and over. I agree with some of your points. Simply repeating them ad nauseum isn't going to make anything change, and certainly not before 'ard boyz.

And, yes, you can bring up all sorts of specific examples that you dislike. I can too, there are specific rulings I dislike in there as well. That doesn't change the fact that it is better to know how those rulings will be applied before you go to a tournament, as opposed to finding out when they happen.

sounds just like Gwar over on YMDC... he is back to his old self again. Wolverine taught the X-Men it is necessary to kill at times and they are better for it.

I have thought about it a lot and I am okay with the INAT FAQ as long as there are no last minute surprise changes and the IG are well handled.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:[

sounds just like Gwar over on YMDC... he is back to his old self again. Wolverine taught the X-Men it is necessary to kill at times and they are better for it.

Just, no.

Really.

No.

I see! He's mad because he wasn't asked!

Let the Timmah dynasty of 40K begin!

Seriously.

Let's just hope this years winner knows their own rules?

Timmah wrote:

So in effect the INAT is making rules for us. If I am understanding what you are saying. GW did address this in that if the weapon does not says it is a certain mount, then you just do whatever the gun can see.

Either way, my question still stands. How will this be ruled at ard boyz? Will any non categorized mount be used per pg 59 and whatever it could potentially see be allowed or will the FAQ be used and my landspeeders only be able to fire their bottom mounted weapon in a 45% arc forward?

The first page of rulings in the INAT (page 3) says:

GEN.06 – Q: Throughout this FAQ are classifications
of how weapons are mounted on vehicles, however
the online GW rulebook FAQ says that weapon arcs
are defined by how the weapon looks like it should be
able to rotate on the model. What is the correct way
to play?
A: GW’s FAQ ruling is correct: If the weapon looks like it
would be able to turn to face a direction if it wasn’t glued in
place, then it can. In essence, the weapon mounting
classifications presented in the rulebook (and referenced by
this FAQ) represent the bare minimum the weapon of that
type can rotate [RAW].

Timmah wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:
Here's a basic principle of rules interpretation and good sportsmanship - when given 2 or more possible ways to interpret a rule, always choose the one that's least advantageous to the action taker.

Sorry but that is a terrible way of interpreting rules.

So if I ever claim that my unit has a cover save then I am always right? Since you are the one shooting...

Is there something particularly ambiguous about the rules for taking cover saves? Because your example isn't the same as what Centurian was proposing in the least. The principle he mentioned is important when considering two or more valid interpretations of an ambiguous rule, not when dealing with a perfectly clear game situation.

Anyways I am through with this thread its obvious that the INAT FAQ is dakka's baby and they won't even admit that there are problems with it.

Also, you mentioned earlier that I could give constructive criticism of the FAQ earlier. Where exactly would I do that? With plans to attend adepticon possibly next year I would at least like to pretend my concerns are heard about their ruleset.

You can PM me here, you can send an email to the address found in the INAT FAQ document (adepticon09@gmail.com), or you can always go to the Adepticon website and find the 'contact us' email address (which is probably still adepticon09@gmail.com for now).

Timmah wrote:
Can I ask this question then:

What is the reasoning behind changing rules from what they actually are?
I realize sometimes it is a necessity like with Vendetta rules. But with rules that don't have any ramifications whatsoever being changed, I am wondering why they decide to change these rules?

I'll go ahead and post a bit of the afterword from the upcoming 3.0 version of the INAT which I think addresses what you're talking about:

The goal of this document is to ensure a fun and smoothly run event for as many players as possible, which should also be the goal of any good tournament. This is accomplished by granting players the peace of mind of knowing exactly how certain rulings will be handled should they arise in their games long before they ever decide to attend the tournament.

Because of this goal, we’ve attempted to make our rulings match the way most people naturally play the game. This ideal is based on what we have witnessed through years of running and playing in national tournaments comprised of strangers from across the world as well as input from the occasional internet poll. We understand that this is (quite) far from an exact methodology, but we feel it is the only system that works for a document of this nature.

Due to its extreme length, we know most players attending an event will not have read the entire FAQ and it is very unwieldy to print out and carry. However, since we generally rule how most people naturally play the game, these two issues become much less dire. The hardcore players who enjoy reading every line of a FAQ, even if they don’t personally agree with the ruling, will come to the event already aware of how every issue will be handled. The casual player will show up and simply play their games, blissfully unaware that the FAQ even exists because it already follows the way they play!

If this is the ideal, how do we determine when our rulings will side with the ‘RAW’ (rules as written) and when they will deviate? And what criteria do we use to apply the descriptive ‘ruling tags’ to the end of each ruling?

First, it is important to note that there really isn’t such a thing as ‘RAW’, only the rules as the person reading the text interprets them. Language is not an exact science like mathematics and two reasonable, intelligent people reading the same passage will often end up with two entirely different ideas of what the rules actually say.

The only time we use the [RAW] tag in our FAQ is when all of the members of the ruling council agree that there is just one possible interpretation of the rule in that particular situation and that interpretation does not go against how the vast majority of players we’ve seen play it. If we do rule against the RAW in this situation (because we believe the vast majority plays it differently) we then label the ruling as a [rules change].

Most of the rulings in our FAQ are labeled as a [clarification]. These represent situations where any member of the ruling council interprets the RAW differently from any other member, or the rules don’t seem to present any definitive answer. In these cases, we are choosing one of several valid interpretations of the RAW, always being mindful to try to stick with how we’ve seen most people play that situation.

One other thing to note is that we have tried to stick with the mandate laid out by Games Workshop in their own FAQs, and that is: when in doubt, the rules presented in a codex apply, even if the codex is quite old and sometimes even if common sense would seem to dictate the contrary.

The first and most important thing to get out on the table is the fact that there is no one set of 'RAW' that everyone agrees on that our FAQ simply 'chooses to ignore' at will. In the few years I've been doing this we've frequently gotten flak from one person angry that we aren't following the 'RAW' (as they see it) with 'ruling A' but they are happy with 'ruling B', while another guy thinks we got 'ruling A' perfect per the 'RAW' but have totally missed the boat on 'ruling B'.

So please rest assured that no matter what particular question you feel we've completely disregarded the 'RAW' willy-nilly there is at least one other person out there (if not more) who thinks we ruled that situation absolutely correct.

But as alluded above the goal of an unofficial tournament FAQ is not to get every question "right" (if such an ideal is even possible). We can't do that because we don't have access to the writers' minds or the ability to put out 'official' errata and there are just too many situations that genuinely have more than one completely plausible interpretation.

Instead, the goal of such a document is to help run a smooth event. How does it do this?

Well, there are situations where a small minority of players like to play by what they interpret as the 'RAW' and some of these people don't like to even try to compromise with their opponents to make the game (and therefore the tournament) run smoothly. So when the vast majority of players end up playing these folks they end up having to discuss/argue about rules for a lot of their game.

A perfect example would be the one you brought up earlier involving a Dark Angels Narthecium ignoring failed saves for a vehicle. While this may be the most logical interpretation of the rules (it is, IMHO), the fact is if you ran a poll asking how people actually choose to play the game I'm guessing you'd find somewhere in the realm of 75%+ people choose to not allow a Narthecium to ignore a vehicle's failed save.

So in general you'd find that around 75% of the players showing up at a big tournament would come expecting DA Nartheciums to *not* work on vehicles. If that question comes up and becomes an issue, a judge will have to be called over and as well know from experience, different judges make rulings based on different criteria and there is a decent chance this ruling could end up going either way.

So when the INAT makes a ruling based on how we've seen 'most' people play, what does this accomplish?


1) All players can know ahead of time by reading the FAQ how all rulings are going to be made so they won't get screwed 'on the spot' expecting things to be played one way and then having to reverse their tactics mid-game and they know this ruling will be uniformly applied in each of their games.

2) Since we've ruled how 'most' people naturally tend to play this issue chances are, this issue won't even come up in the game. This tends to be because if the game is played by two of the 'majority' then they just play as normal completely unaware of the FAQ. On the other hand the 'minority' players who really like to stick to the 'RAW' as they see it (from my experience) tend to also be the players who read every FAQ from front to back and know every ruling. So when dealing with an unofficial tournament FAQ, these are the players who will have read it all ahead of time and will know going into it what rules are going to be played 'against the RAW' as they see it. So while they may not care for the ruling, at least their games can run more smoothly, which is exactly what the goal of the FAQ is.




One last thing I want to mention:

When it comes to the Dethrolla ruling, our first version of the FAQ with this question in it, allowed Dethrollas to be used during rams on vehicles. It was only after we published this first version that we were able to contact some fairly reliable sources who assured us that the 'official word' through the back-alleys was that Dethrollas shouldn't be allowed to be used against vehicles and that eventually this ruling would make it into GW's official FAQ.

So why the retail sales dept who runs the 'ardboyz decided to rule the opposite way and whether or not this ruling will indeed ever make it into the official GW FAQ (and what the ruling will actually end up being) are completely unknown. But I do know that in this particular case we made an effort to try to keep our FAQ on the same page as the UKGT house rules.


I don't particularly think that changing rulings mid-rounds of a tournament is a good idea, but I, of course, am gratified to see that the National Sales guys appreciate the value of what we've put together.


Hopefully that answered some of your questions and I apologize if some (much) of this has been rambling, as I'm just kind of writing it as I think it.

Keep it up Yakface! 3 cheers for you guys!!!

I'm one of those RAW guys that likes things coming from the book or faq if possible. That said I appreciate the INAT FAQ just because I'll read it before I go to Adepticon and I'll know how ruling will be made so I don't have to call the judge 6 times a game or argue for 45min of my 2hr round. Nothing will ever be perfect but as a TO here in AK I can appreciate the work that goes into the INAT FAQ even if I don't agree with every ruling. At least there is a ruling that everyone knows ahead of time.

I remember the days when I'd wait months or longer to get a faq updated or released for an army 40k or Fantasy. Those were bad days.

Personaly I am a RAI kind of guy, however myself and everyone at my FLGS have adopted the Adepticon FAQ as our official FAQ for 3 reasons.....

1. Its the best we have, until GW makes an FAQ that is as detailed......and thats not looking to likely.

2. There is always a need for RAW. And RAW that keeps RAI in mind is always going to be more useful than a cold RAW that ignores the spirit of the game and is a ruling for the sake of a ruling. This FAQ is as close to perfect as I have ever seen as the RAW follows how the majority play rather than the minority, and thus the RAI is observed to some extent.

3. This was not the work of a single player who might be biased towards his personal army, nor was it the work of some disgruntaled player that feels some armies need to be nerfed. Many people from many viewpoints and many armies have agreed on these rules and thus I am lead to believe that these rules are more balanced than just being the work of some SM fanboys.

Sorry, but writing a FAQ to the way most people play the issue is kinda silly. Especially when certain issues are easily covered by RAW.

Just because a solution is popular does not make it right.

The Chaos dreadnought ruling is the way all people who don't understand the rule play.

The ruling on apothecaries from DA/BA is the way fluff players play...

7 people trying to determine how 'most' players play a rule is pretty ridiculous.

You say that you want players to not even have to read the FAQ. So what happens when I don't read it and I bring my DA army. (every DA player I have ever talked to knows that the Apothecary can ignore a failed cover save) and all of a sudden I find out RAW has changed and it costs me a game because of it?

Timmah wrote:You say that you want players to not even have to read the FAQ. So what happens when I don't read it and I bring my DA army. (every DA player I have ever talked to knows that the Apothecary can ignore a failed cover save) and all of a sudden I find out RAW has changed and it costs me a game because of it?

Thats why they label them as Rule Changes. If you do not read the FAQ it is your own damn fault.

I realize that Gwar! but do you really think everyone is going to read a hundred page FAQ to make sure that the judges didn't change some rule?

A lot of people will, but some won't. Is it their fault? sure, but heck, even the adepticon people admit that the majority of players won't read the entire FAQ.

When you admit that a document won't be completely read, then changing rules in it is not a good idea. (usually)

It should be noted that I do not believe in anyway that 75% of the community would say DA/BA Narthecium don't work on cover saves. I have yet to meet a DA/BA player that doesn't play that way. And I have never had an opponent complain when I use to play DA. (after I explained it too them)

On a final note:
the online community =! the entire 40k playing community

Timmah wrote:I realize that Gwar! but do you really think everyone is going to read a hundred page FAQ to make sure that the judges didn't change some rule?

If they are going and the FAQ is prepared Weeks before, then yes. There is no excuse.

Timmah, what do you plan on doig for the Hard Boyz then?

Are you going to willfully ignore the INAT? Hope you never have to use it that day?

Because it seems that if the INAT team said "the sky is blue" you would disagree with that just ont he principal that 7-9 guys said it,a nd you weren't one of them.

I think Yakface, et al. have made it pretty clear that it isn't about changing rules, it is about letting players know, for -this- event that in situations where two reasonable players could come to valid but differing decisions on rule X, that it will be ruled on in Y fashion.

That's all.

You are seriously coming across as "It's Timmah's way or the highway" and as TFG who will hold up an event for 45 minutes until he gets his way.

Timmah wrote:
The Chaos dreadnought ruling is the way all people who don't understand the rule play.

It's also the way that they play it in the design studio, all the GW staff tournies and how Alessio said it should be played.

The ruling on apothecaries from DA/BA is the way fluff players play...

And sensible people.

Timmah wrote:do you really think everyone is going to read a hundred page FAQ to make sure that the judges didn't change some rule?

A lot of people will, but some won't. Is it their fault? sure, but heck, even the adepticon people admit that the majority of players won't read the entire FAQ.

When you admit that a document won't be completely read, then changing rules in it is not a good idea. (usually)

People who are willing to commit the time and energy to a national competition should not have to read its rules?
Ummm?

You are willing to nit-pick the process of making the FAQ to this level, and then complain you should read it?

yakface wrote:On the other hand the 'minority' players who really like to stick to the 'RAW' as they see it (from my experience) tend to also be the players who read every FAQ from front to back and know every ruling. So when dealing with an unofficial tournament FAQ, these are the players who will have read it all ahead of time and will know going into it what rules are going to be played 'against the RAW' as they see it.

I am in the mentioned crowd, and it is one of the main reasons I appreciate the FAQ. Thank you for it.

Timmah wrote: I have yet to meet a DA/BA player that doesn't play that way. And I have never had an opponent complain when I use to play DA. (after I explained it too them)

I daresay they were trying to play and not argue rules.

Ummm how many Dark Angels players will be at the finals? How many lists have you seen with Chaos Dreadnoughts making the finals?

Even though I can't make the finals (darn ERP go-live) I'm looking forward to seeing the updated FAQ to address some IG situations that have come up.

(Valks, hot shot lasguns & FRFSRF, and giving orders to allies)

asugradinwa wrote:Ummm how many Dark Angels players will be at the finals? How many lists have you seen with Chaos Dreadnoughts making the finals?

Even though I can't make the finals (darn ERP go-live) I'm looking forward to seeing the updated FAQ to address some IG situations that have come up.

(Valks, hot shot lasguns & FRFSRF, and giving orders to allies)

If this is the case, why do they want to hurt them even more by changing their rules?

Its not like any of their other wargear is updated for 5th edition. Why should this one piece?


As for Chaos Dreads. I would really like to see where someone from the design studio stated that is how they worked. I would be more than happy to change my opinion if someone legit said it.

Not to get into a rules debate, but why would it mention the dreadnoughts vision in finding a target and then again in determining LOS? If we played it the way you the FAQ says we would check LOS twice which seems odd...

BTW at all the people calling me TFG and such. It does nothing to help your argument. Claiming I am wrong because you think I would hold up a tournament for 45 mins over a stupid rule is rediculous. And even if I would (I wouldn't) it wouldn't prove your way of thinking is correct.

Besides without any criticism of the FAQ how would you make it better? If everyone just replied, oh its amazing I love everything about it. Would you honestly like that? Personally I would think you would welcome a discussion of the problems people have with it so that you could make it better. But thats just me, maybe you think differently.

It's amazing, I love everything about it.

<3

RxGhost wrote:It's amazing, I love everything about it.

I agree. It was better than Cats--I'd see it again

Well after 7+ pages of gak it still appears Timmah is either:

1) Not coming to Chicago
2) Going to be TFG at the tourney

Either way, it's a win win as he will either not be there or get booted.

But, GW has their own email. Why not compile all of your compelling arguments in this thread and send them?

Contact Us
By Phone

Games Workshop: 1-800-394-4263

* Monday through Friday from 09:00 am to 7:00 pm EST

Please note: Rules questions and gaming related problems can only be answered via email. Please contact us and we will respond within 3 business days.
By Mail

Games Workshop Customer Service
6711 Baymeadow Drive
Glen Burnie, MD 21060-6401
USA

custserv@games-workshop.com

See. I'm being helpful too.

The problem Timmah is that your not offering CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. That is how you help make something better. You give ideas on how to do things better. Your just yelling "it's bad" over and over again. You've been rebutted several times and it basically all comes back to you not liking it because you feel like 7-9 people didn't consult you when they made it and that they are biased I might not agree with parts of it and I know it could, in a lot of places, cut out some verbage but it's at least a solid tool to help people from all over the country be able to be on the same page ahead of time.

Hulksmash wrote:The problem Timmah is that your not offering CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. That is how you help make something better. You give ideas on how to do things better. Your just yelling "it's bad" over and over again. You've been rebutted several times and it basically all comes back to you not liking it because you feel like 7-9 people didn't consult you when they made it and that they are biased I might not agree with parts of it and I know it could, in a lot of places, cut out some verbage but it's at least a solid tool to help people from all over the country be able to be on the same page ahead of time.

I have actually said that I like it a lot of times.

My problems with it are:

The way GW is using/implementing it - Nothing can be done about this (even if they do have an email account for questions and such)

Some of the rulings that essentially change the game - Yes some of my original posts were a bit of yelling. Since then I have asked what the reasoning was for a lot of the changes in rules. (yes they did change the rules, they even said they did)

I have not really gotten any real answers, most of the posts tell me I am being TFG and I shoulld quit whining.

I pointed out that a lot of people will not read the entire thing, especially in cases where they know what RAW is. (the Narthecium example being used in this case) Even Yakface said that he did not expect most people to read the entire thing.

So when I pointed this out, I got told that if you don't read the entire thing you are an idiot. (even though the writers don't expect you to)

I do not see the problem with someone discussing the problems they have with this FAQ. If they want changes to be made with it, how else would they go about doing it. I was hoping to have an actual discussion on why there are rules changes in the FAQ (which Yakface did answer) however I thought more people would comment on their thoughts of this, but instead I got called names ect.

And you still haven't answered the question -

Is it better to know ahead of time what the ruling will be or is it better to find out in the middle of a game?

I have already said that I like the FAQ and that I would stand by what it says for the tournament.

Multiple times in fact...

First off, you keep changing what your saying. In fact, you keep changing what you say you're saying.

Secondly, GW isn't adopting this thing, officially or unofficially. The head judge of a single tournament, hosted by GW North America is using it, probably as a result of the problems that arose last year.

Third, you keep seeming to ignore the fact that judges and tournament organizers don't see following the proper rules as the first priority. Being fair and running a smooth tournament far outweigh any attempts to discern the "true" RAW. Claiming otherwise ignores the fact that TOs want to host fun successful events, and most of the people that come want the event to fun and successful, and for most of those technical RAW isn't a big deal.

Fourth, the reasoning for the rules are pretty easy to discern, and expecting a personal reply over a few rulings is a bit presumptuous. Is an explanation going to satisfy you, or will that simply lead to a debate on the appropriateness of the reasoning? When they change rules, it's to make it match the way most people play, as has been pointed out. For example, with DA narthicium and vehicle cover saves, most people don't play it that way, and the RAW is considered silly by most of those that do. To rule against that is against RAW, but it matches what people play, and minimizes the risk of rules confusion during an event, as those that play that way won't know it's in the FAQ, and most rules nutters will read the FAQ.

I think you're making a bit of a mistake of hubris in assuming that because you know the RAW (or what you think the RAW is), you don't need to read a tournament FAQ. The first rule of tournaments is that the TO outweighs RAW every time. When the TO tells you, here's a list of rules for the event, and you chose not to read them, you can't complain when they don't go your way.

I also think it's unreasonable to spend any amount of time discussing rules conflicts online, and then assume that nobody would ever not play by the RAW that you hold to. Clearly most people don't' hold to a literal RAW view 100% of the time, and pretending they don't is willful ignorance. Going to a national event and expecting your view of RAW to hold all the time is a recipe for failure.

Although I generally think that INAT FAQ is really good work, I am also bit uncomfortable with plain Rules changes...for example, in Tau section there is a rule change that Krootox counts as two models when loaded in a transport. It is not a particularly big deal as hardly anyone uses Krootox (esp. at tournament level), but it is simply not in the rules. It is simply changed to make seemingly more sense, but I think this is potentially dangerous path to tread.

Polonius wrote:First off, you keep changing what your saying. In fact, you keep changing what you say you're saying.

Secondly, GW isn't adopting this thing, officially or unofficially. The head judge of a single tournament, hosted by GW North America is using it, probably as a result of the problems that arose last year.

Third, you keep seeming to ignore the fact that judges and tournament organizers don't see following the proper rules as the first priority. Being fair and running a smooth tournament far outweigh any attempts to discern the "true" RAW. Claiming otherwise ignores the fact that TOs want to host fun successful events, and most of the people that come want the event to fun and successful, and for most of those technical RAW isn't a big deal.

Sorry I don't see how you can run a fair tournament when your breaking rules.

Polonius wrote:
Fourth, the reasoning for the rules are pretty easy to discern, and expecting a personal reply over a few rulings is a bit presumptuous. Is an explanation going to satisfy you, or will that simply lead to a debate on the appropriateness of the reasoning? When they change rules, it's to make it match the way most people play, as has been pointed out. For example, with DA narthicium and vehicle cover saves, most people don't play it that way, and the RAW is considered silly by most of those that do. To rule against that is against RAW, but it matches what people play, and minimizes the risk of rules confusion during an event, as those that play that way won't know it's in the FAQ, and most rules nutters will read the FAQ.

I was asking that they have a discussion on why they feel the need to change rules like this at all. Just because something seems "silly" to you through RAW, that does not mean it shouldn't be played like that.
Heck, if I said I find it silly that BA/DA have crappier wargear than Ultramarines you wouldn't update all their wargear.

Personal opinion when a matter is clearly define by RAW is shifty at best. I asked for their reasoning on this. If it is solely to run a smoother event, I would ask, how many people at an event would complain about either side of this argument?

Polonius wrote:
I think you're making a bit of a mistake of hubris in assuming that because you know the RAW (or what you think the RAW is), you don't need to read a tournament FAQ. The first rule of tournaments is that the TO outweighs RAW every time. When the TO tells you, here's a list of rules for the event, and you chose not to read them, you can't complain when they don't go your way.

I also think it's unreasonable to spend any amount of time discussing rules conflicts online, and then assume that nobody would ever not play by the RAW that you hold to. Clearly most people don't' hold to a literal RAW view 100% of the time, and pretending they don't is willful ignorance. Going to a national event and expecting your view of RAW to hold all the time is a recipe for failure.

I realize that TO outweighs RAW, which is exactly my question to them. Why are they changing RAW. Even on the discussion on here most people admitted that per RAW the Narthecium worked. Even in the FAQ they pretty much state that it works hence the RULES CHANGE wording in the FAQ answer.

So if its obvious to even the people writing the FAQ that they are changing the rules to their opinions of the rules, why will you not accept that they are changing them?

I wanted people to discuss whether this was a good practice or not.

But instead I get flames and name calling. They are the ones wanting people to come to their event and they want to run a smooth event. I would think at least a looking over of why they are doing something like this wouldn't be big of deal.

Backfire wrote:Although I generally think that INAT FAQ is really good work, I am also bit uncomfortable with plain Rules changes...for example, in Tau section there is a rule change that Krootox counts as two models when loaded in a transport. It is not a particularly big deal as hardly anyone uses Krootox (esp. at tournament level), but it is simply not in the rules. It is simply changed to make seemingly more sense, but I think this is potentially dangerous path to tread.

Exactly my point.

Backfire wrote:Although I generally think that INAT FAQ is really good work, I am also bit uncomfortable with plain Rules changes...for example, in Tau section there is a rule change that Krootox counts as two models when loaded in a transport. It is not a particularly big deal as hardly anyone uses Krootox (esp. at tournament level), but it is simply not in the rules. It is simply changed to make seemingly more sense, but I think this is potentially dangerous path to tread.

I really appreciate this post, because I think it's one of the more honest ones addressing concerns I've seen.

I think that there are two semi-legitimate threads of argument against any prepared rules document: how was it prepared, and what does it include. The third, and the one that's not really legitimate, is the one that's not spoken, but I think thing is inherent in a lot of the criticisms: what does this mean for my ability to control my hobby. As the INAT FAQ picks up steam and it's answers are often adopted by GW, their position as a source of not just rules clarifications but outright rules is coming into focus, and I think that scares a lot of folks. This is, by design, a very individualistic hobby. Fear of losing some of that individualism can be scary, and while it's not the most polite thing to say, I think hobby wargames attract a higher percentage of people for whom paranoia is common than many communities.

This isn't to say that every disagreement over a ruling is the result of paranoia, but I think that the key to remember about this work is that it's accepted so gladly by the masses because it meets our needs, not because we're beholden to it. The concern about "a next step" or a "slippery slope" are understandable, but if the rulings stopped being generally acceptable and reasonable a lot of people are going to start opposing it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Timmah wrote:
Sorry I don't see how you can run a fair tournament when your breaking rules.

It's fair when everybody is playing by the same rules.

I was asking that they have a discussion on why they feel the need to change rules like this at all. Just because something seems "silly" to you through RAW, that does not mean it shouldn't be played like that.
Heck, if I said I find it silly that BA/DA have crappier wargear than Ultramarines you wouldn't update all their wargear.

Personal opinion when a matter is clearly define by RAW is shifty at best. I asked for their reasoning on this. If it is solely to run a smoother event, I would ask, how many people at an event would complain about either side of this argument?

I think it's been explained why they're making rules changes, you just don't see any value to that.

I think people are going to be more upset when they find out that the rules they understand and make sense are wrong according to RAW. A person that understands RAW would, most likely, understand that other interpretations exist.

I realize that TO outweighs RAW, which is exactly my question to them. Why are they changing RAW. Even on the discussion on here most people admitted that per RAW the Narthecium worked. Even in the FAQ they pretty much state that it works hence the RULES CHANGE wording in the FAQ answer.

So if its obvious to even the people writing the FAQ that they are changing the rules to their opinions of the rules, why will you not accept that they are changing them?

I think I do accept that they're changing rules. I'm very comfortable with it, because they're generally turning bad rules into good rules.

I wanted people to discuss whether this was a good practice or not.

But instead I get flames and name calling. They are the ones wanting people to come to their event and they want to run a smooth event. I would think at least a looking over of why they are doing something like this wouldn't be big of deal.

I think there comes a point in any discussion where, when you've shifted your point disingenuously, and keep refusing to see any value to something that most people do, that while you're certainly entitled to your opinion, you're not exactly going to get a rousing discussion on it.

There is pretty clearly no single RAW answer for every question. At some point, there comes judgment calls and a use of discretion. Once you get over the fact that there isn't one pure RAW (and trust me, there isn't) you realize that the rules are interpretable. So, they're wiggle room, and all we're talking about is where you draw the line.

I think it's also useful to understand that you're in an extreme minority with regards to the usage of pure, unadulterated RAW in tournaments.

There is not RAW wiggle room on a lot of rulings.

The Krootox ruling
The Narthecium ruling (you may argue what was intended, but RAW is says any save, not much getting around that)

I am sure there are more.

Even the writers admit they changed some rules. I am prefectly fine with FAQ's clarifying and making a judgement call on grey areas. But on easy RAW rulings it just seems strange that they want to change the rule.

Your opinion on them changing bad rules to good rules is just that, your opinion. Ask 100 different people and you will get a ton of different answers.

What if you have an entire IG army and they just randomly decide you can no longer vendettas because they feel they are too broken for the point cost or can only carry half the troops (cause vendettas look small). Now non IG players may think this is a great change, but for you playing the army that is effected will think its a terrible idea. Sure this is a bit more radical than the Krootox ruling but its in the same vein.

Timmah, THAT IS WHY THEY ARE MARKED AS RULE CHANGES.

If they had been Marked as RaW or Clarification I would agree, but they are clearly marked as Rules Changes, and if you do not like it, do not play in the Tournament.

You do know that GW can make up whatever rules they want for their tournaments. They can Ban Nob Bikers, or Models Painted pink!

Sorry, my bad. The INAT FAQ is the best thing ever. Its brilliance requires no discussion. I am sorry for ever questioning. What was I thinking when I thought the writers might like some constructive feedback on their work so that it would appeal to a larger audience.

I sincerely apologize for everything I wrote in the thread.

/drinks kool aid

Timmah wrote: What was I thinking when I thought the writers might like some constructive feedback on their work so that it would appeal to a larger audience.

I think in that sentence you summed up exactly why there's such a problem with your argument for the last few posts. Rules changes were explained as being more appealing to a larger audience, but you brushed that off as not being valuable. Now you expect us to believe that you want to make this more appealing? You either don't understand what the bulk of the 40k tournament scene wants, or you've been arguing in really bad faith.

OK..... you want to bitch about people breaking the rules by making a rule based on RAI as opposed to RAW....lets look at something that happend to me.


I compete in SCCA events with a 1987 Mazda RX-7. For a couple years myself and a couple other guys would stomp the < 2.0 liter N/A catagory with our tiny little 1.3 liter rotory engines......

Just a couple years ago they (our local chapter) made a ruling that Rotories should count as one class up. That put us in the v6 groups against much more powerful cars.

It wasnt following the RAW as our cars are still 1.3 liter and not 2.0+. But the rule was change because with the RAW we had a laughably easy time beating the other 1.4-1.8 liter cars. It wasnt to our benifit but it was the most fair thing to do for the sake of everyone else.

Since then I have learned to drive my car a little different to compete with the larger engine cars, and I am starting to win against them again by using other tricks that my light engine allows me to do.

Live .....Learn...... Adapt.......

Rules dont need to be RAW, they just need to be understood.

No I am arguing that you can't possibly know what the vast bulk of the 40k tournament going audience wants.

Thats why you don't change rules that are clear.

In all of the Adepticons there have been since 5th ed.
How many arguments have there been about DA/BA narthecium's or Krootox in devilfish? I would bet under 3.

Of course I can't be for sure, but neither can anyone.

Why would there be an arguement?

It's clearly laid out in the INAT how it is to be played at Adepticon.

My guess is that 3 is 3 higher than the actual number.

Shotgun wrote:Why would there be an arguement?

It's clearly laid out in the INAT how it is to be played at Adepticon.

My guess is that 3 is 3 higher than the actual number.

I obviously meant before the FAQ came out.

My point was that they stated they changed the rules to help the event flow smoother.

My counter was that a lot of the straight up rule changes weren't even a problem to begin with.

And are they a problem afterwards?

Timmah wrote:No I am arguing that you can't possibly know what the vast bulk of the 40k tournament going audience wants.

Adepticon is the largest tournament in North America, it's phenomenally successful, and the INAT council includes some pretty high power tournament gamers as well as the owner of one of the largest tournament centric forums on the internet. I think they know what tournament gamers want.

They may not know what you want, but they're pretty good at delivering what the people want.

If you have any evidence that they're wrong about what tournament gamers want, then feel free to post it, but until then I think the evidence is pretty clear that the Adepticon guys know what they're doing.

The Dreadnote wrote:And are they a problem afterwards?

Yes, because it sets a precedence that they can change any rule they want. Check Backfires post for this.



Running the largest 40k tournaments doesn't automatically make them experts on what the player base wants. I would bet the number of gamers that stick to RTT's and such far outweights the number that attends their handful of events.

Heres a question for you. How many people didn't go to adepticon because they didn't like the FAQ?

Give up? Thats right, you have no way of possibly answering it. So there is no real precedence over how successful their tournaments actually are.



Look, its simple. They can run their events however they want. But I should be allowed to have an opinion of the way they run it also. No one is making them answer me, I am just bringing up my concern.

Timmah wrote:

Shotgun wrote:Why would there be an arguement?

It's clearly laid out in the INAT how it is to be played at Adepticon.

My guess is that 3 is 3 higher than the actual number.

I obviously meant before the FAQ came out.

My point was that they stated they changed the rules to help the event flow smoother.

My counter was that a lot of the straight up rule changes weren't even a problem to begin with.

Combining "In all of the Adepticons since 5e came out" and "before the FAQ came out" yeilds a total of zero Adepticons. The FAQ is published well in advance of the event. This is done, as stated repeatedly, to ensure that everyone who is curious/concerned can know how certain rulings will turn out. Consequently, these issues don't come up at Adepticon.

It's a prevention tool. Your counter-position assumes that the absence of any problems after the fact indicates that there was no need for prevention, rather than assuming that the prevention tool was successful in its goal.

BTW, I'm guessing the Krootox thing is due to the rules for super heavy transports allowed in Apoc, where all models on larger bases take two slots in a transport. Rather than have inconsistencies between transports, they simply had krootox take two spots in a devilfish as well as an orca.

Let me get this straight....your measure of success is how many people -don't- show up because they -don't- like the rules?

That is mind numbing.

The thing sells out, year after year, yet on your metric, its unsucessful because people don't show up because they don't like the rules?

Timmah wrote:
Yes, because it sets a precedence that they can change any rule they want. Check Backfires post for this.

You can also check my post where I argue that the respect given this document is always conditional, and will be pulled if they go too far.

Running the largest 40k tournaments doesn't automatically make them experts on what the player base wants. I would bet the number of gamers that stick to RTT's and such far outweights the number that attends their handful of events.

I think you're confusing expert with all knowing. If they're not tournament experts, who is? Of course there are more tournament gamers than they serve, but that doesn't change the fact that they're the most successful tournament organizers.

Heres a question for you. How many people didn't go to adepticon because they didn't like the FAQ?

Give up? Thats right, you have no way of possibly answering it. So there is no real precedence over how successful their tournaments actually are.

That's a good point. I mean, it's more of your "well, there might be evidence that we don't know about" type of posts, but you raise a good point. I'm guessing it's roughly equal to the number of people that don't fly because that's how the government tracks you. My point: stop making claims that there "might be this" or that "you don't know that," and deal with what we do know.

Look, its simple. They can run their events however they want. But I should be allowed to have an opinion of the way they run it also. No one is making them answer me, I am just bringing up my concern.

And I think your concern has been noted.

Shotgun wrote:Let me get this straight....your measure of success is how many people -don't- show up because they -don't- like the rules?

That is mind numbing.

The thing sells out, year after year, yet on your metric, its unsuccessful because people don't show up because they don't like the rules?

No, I am not saying adepticon isn't successful. It is. I am saying that its not potentially as successful as it could be. And if they are looking to grow the volume of people they get, (you know like increasing your sales, just like in business) they could take a look at how they make their FAQ.

How many people attend adepticon to play 40k? 300?

Now how many tournament players do you think there are across the US? Obviously a lot are not attending. So then we can speculate on the reasons some don't. Don't want to travel, no money ect. Now do you really believe that not 1 person in the entire US decided they didn't want to go because of the way rules are made up. I am sure there were a lot of people on the fence. And all it takes is one angry friend (like me ) to convince an on the fence player not to go.

Timmah wrote:
Now how many tournament players do you think there are across the US? Obviously a lot are not attending. So then we can speculate on the reasons some don't. Don't want to travel, no money ect. Now do you really believe that not 1 person in the entire US decided they didn't want to go because of the way rules are made up. I am sure there were a lot of people on the fence. And all it takes is one angry friend (like me ) to convince an on the fence player not to go.

The problem there is that if you are listened to and the changes that make you happy are implemented, it's possible that just as many, if not more, players would decide not to go because of the new rulings that stick to the RAW.

This is the whole core to the problem your arguments raise: more people would play without pure RAW than with, and I think the INAT council knows that.

And to head off the rebuttal, I know we can't know for certain what the bulk of tournament gamers want, but I think there's far more evidence showing that there is a willingness to abandon RAW for game balance than to follow it too the letter.

Well, basically I'm concerned with consistency: in which cases FAQ should go strict RAW, and when there should be rule change even if RAW is absolutely clear, as in the Krootox rule? And I might add that Krootox thing is hardly a game-breaking either way, so one might argue that rule change is unnecessary [or alternatively, one might argue that it is useless to complain about something so insignifant]

Anyway, I'm not willing to state strong opinions beyond what I said above, as I just don't have enough expertise about INAT FAQ or its effects on gameplay.

Polonius wrote:

Timmah wrote:
Now how many tournament players do you think there are across the US? Obviously a lot are not attending. So then we can speculate on the reasons some don't. Don't want to travel, no money ect. Now do you really believe that not 1 person in the entire US decided they didn't want to go because of the way rules are made up. I am sure there were a lot of people on the fence. And all it takes is one angry friend (like me ) to convince an on the fence player not to go.

The problem there is that if you are listened to and the changes that make you happy are implemented, it's possible that just as many, if not more, players would decide not to go because of the new rulings that stick to the RAW.


And to head off the rebuttal, I know we can't know for certain what the bulk of tournament gamers want, but I think there's far more evidence showing that there is a willingness to abandon RAW for game balance than to follow it too the letter.

Very true. I took out the middle statement because unless they have some proof as such, no one would know. Just as they don't know if they will get more without changing the rules.

Yes there is far more evidence toward the one, however the other side doesn't really have any evidence. (we might see some depending on how yetticon does)
I mean in all reality, IMO having a krootox count as 1 model in a transport isn't really going to turn anyone off. However the option they went with actually changes the rules. So we have a RULE CHANGE to help make the tournament go smoother vs a keeping RAW. Which would you honestly say would turn more people off. Even if its just 1-2 total.

As far as the balance statement...

Were krootox and DA/BA too dominant at the last event? I highly doubt they were changed for game balance. In fact I got laughed at earlier in this thread when I said all the DA players will be upset. Because there might be 1 DA player at the entire event. DA are far and away worse than normal SM. So please don't claim these changes were for balance reasons.

@Backfire
You are right, either way the krootox thing isn't even a big deal and probably won't effect anyone. However by doing it they are changing a rule and its the principle of the thing. Why would you potentially alienate people by making a rule change that won't matter to anyone anyways?

Timmah wrote:

Very true. I took out the middle statement because unless they have some proof as such, no one would know. Just as they don't know if they will get more without changing the rules.

Do you honestly not know how decisions are made? Do you really think that when there is evidence for one thing, but not for another, we should all go "I guess there's no way of knowing"?

Look at YMDC, look at the people that do show up for Adepticon, and look at the experiences of the people that run it. Look at your own experiences. Look at mine. There is a lot of evidence that you're a very small minority in this hobby. That's not to say you're wrong in how to play, but that the INAT council have the best possible understanding of what American Tournament gamers want. They could certainly always know more, and I think they've told you how to contact them with your concerns, but it doesn't change the fact that enforcing a hard line RAW is going to upset/annoy people, and make events that ran smoothly run less smoothly.

Yes there is far more evidence toward the one, however the other side doesn't really have any evidence. (we might see some depending on how yetticon does)

Where I come from that's called a preponderance of evidence. We don't hang men on that standard, but we make decisions based on it.

I mean in all reality, IMO having a krootox count as 1 model in a transport isn't really going to turn anyone off. However the option they went with actually changes the rules. So we have a RULE CHANGE to help make the tournament go smoother vs a keeping RAW. Which would you honestly say would turn more people off. Even if its just 1-2 total.

Well, as I said above, it's to mesh with the transport rules in Apocolypse. Since this same FAQ is used for multiple events, they decided to be consistent.

As far as the balance statement...

Were krootox and DA/BA too dominant at the last event? I highly doubt they were changed for game balance. In fact I got laughed at earlier in this thread when I said all the DA players will be upset. Because there might be 1 DA player at the entire event. DA are far and away worse than normal SM. So please don't claim these changes were for balance reasons.

I didn't. I said balance was one factor. Please don't set up straw men.

Timmah wrote:
Look, its simple. They can run their events however they want. But I should be allowed to have an opinion of the way they run it also. No one is making them answer me, I am just bringing up my concern.

Yes, we get it, you've brought it up for seven pages now. Your opinion is allowed, noted, and getting annoying, not because it's invalid, but because there are seven pages of it.

Timmah wrote:
How many people attend adepticon to play 40k? 300?

Adepticon had over 1000 attendees last year. Over 360 played 40k in one event, and plenty others were playing other 40k events at the same time. I'd guess that the actual number of people who played 40k at adepticon is closer to 500 or 600.

And all it takes is one angry friend (like me ) to convince an on the fence player not to go.

Wow, the 'make me happy or I'll hurt your event' card. Grow up.

Redbeard wrote:
And all it takes is one angry friend (like me ) to convince an on the fence player not to go.

Wow, the 'make me happy or I'll hurt your event' card. Grow up.