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

...a thread quote and response from my flgs.

I don't respect them. If they did something useful then I might.... but trying to fix an intentionally broken system so people that subscribe to said system can try and play in a sponsored tournament using the same set of rules when there should never have been any rules ambiguity in the first place, just doesn't impress me. If it impresses you, sorry

People are still playing this "intentionally broken system" however....regardless.

They have done something useful, something that GW seems to encourage (claim some ownership of your hobby). They've gone through the trouble to scrutinise the rules and codexes looking for inconsistancies and attempted to make decent and fair judgements on issues that need fixing.

These guys are Adepticon regulars. They've constructed an all encompassing FAQ for the game of 40k so that Adepticon attendees will have rules clarifications to turn to when issues arise concerning conflicting or poorly written rules. They've taken that document which was professionally constructed to the best of their abilities and posted it online for others to use OR not use as they desire within their own tournements or 1up games. They've given it freely, without any expectations other than possibly a smoother gaming experiance for anyone who is a dedicated or casual 40k player.

I find that admirable. It impresses me, and I thank them for it.

-Deadshane

but trying to fix an intentionally broken system so people that subscribe to said system can try and play in a sponsored tournament using the same set of rules when there should never have been any rules ambiguity in the first place, just doesn't impress me. If it impresses you, sorry

This is the kind of thing that makes me want to use violence on people. Creative violence. Something ironic. No one cares if you're cheeto stained hands are busy holding FAQ documents or slapping your keyboard in hatred over them. You have few friends, likely no outstanding relationships and a history of loneliness and awkwardness, and the fanciful identity you've created for yourself online and the cander with which you seem to think that your opinions mean something impresses no one. It's a FAQ by tourney goers in an attempt to make it easier for other people to set up tourneys for the game they love to play, get over it.


Was that angry enough? I can be angrier.

ShumaGorath wrote:This is the kind of thing that makes me want to use violence on people. Creative violence. Something ironic. No one cares if you're cheeto stained hands are busy holding FAQ documents or slapping your keyboard in hatred over them. You have few friends, likely no outstanding relationships and a history of loneliness and awkwardness, and the fanciful identity you've created for yourself online and the cander with which you seem to think that your opinions mean something impresses no one.

Get outta my head... uhh... I mean... umm... uhhh... uhh...

*runs*


Actually, I didn't write the quote that Deadshane posted. I have nothing but peace and love, Ringo style, for the INAT guys.

BYE

If you go through the trouble of participating in these national events, you will see the need for taking the rules of this game seriously (as the INAT FAQ does). I think that the backlash for v2.0, is from a small vocal group that doesn't play vs. strangers very often and is upset that their pet rules argument didn't go how they play it in their group.

These individuals are not likely to need such a document in the first place, so their criticisms are perfectly valid for their circumstances.

As for the rest of us, I'll say that it will be nice to be playing the same game as my opponent, whether it's in my FLGS on thursday nights, the town 2 hours away, or at Adepticon. Something as comprehensive as the INATFAQ makes 2 of the 3 scenarios above possible.

I hold this opinion while simultaneously not liking a lot of the rulings; many hurt an army that I am constructing that I consider relatively weak, many validate almost every dirty gray area for an army that is dominating every event this year, and many rulings go against interpretations that I've argued for on YMDC. I'm still in favor of using it though, since the balance of the game is only something you can consider when these questions are answered. Without answers the balance of the game is left to a random judge ruling, the force of your argumentative skills, or a 4+. The INAT FAQ is necessary, regardless of the specifics.

WRONG WRONG WRONG!!! First of all, what's wrong with having a 30 second discussion over the rules once in awhile. Second, who are these people to go around saying that their set of rules opinions are the be-all and end-all of Warhammer 40,000 authority, and finally, who cares if some red bull-chugging tournament jerk who really ought to be slapped down once in awhile gets his way? Fifth edition sucks, and nobody can fix it. Go ahead and hate me, I for one have a thick enough skin that I can take it.

Can do!

warpcrafter wrote: First of all, what's wrong with having a 30 second discussion over the rules once in awhile.

What's wrong with not needing to?

Second, who are these people to go around saying that their set of rules opinions are the be-all and end-all of Warhammer 40,000 authority,

Where have they done that?

and finally, who cares if some red bull-chugging tournament jerk who really ought to be slapped down once in awhile gets his way?

The player on the other side of the table?

warpcrafter wrote:WRONG WRONG WRONG!!! First of all, what's wrong with having a 30 second discussion over the rules once in awhile. Second, who are these people to go around saying that their set of rules opinions are the be-all and end-all of Warhammer 40,000 authority, and finally, who cares if some red bull-chugging tournament jerk who really ought to be slapped down once in awhile gets his way? Fifth edition sucks, and nobody can fix it. Go ahead and hate me, I for one have a thick enough skin that I can take it.

Why are you begging to be hated? Sounds like an emo cry for help to me

The fewer 30 second discussions over rules help move the game along. The goal of a FAQ
is to make gameplay easier, not harder. Even though it's likely that controversial decisions
might spark a long winded argument, more often than not, a well written FAQ moves more
games along in a more cordial atmosphere which helps keep large events on schedule. A
late running event can really suck the fun out of attending.

Tournament organizers are free to call rules for their tournament. By taking feedback, they're
including possible attendees into their decision making process. And remember, not even GW
allows themselves to be the be-all end-all of 40k authority.

Third, maybe a clear list of rules calls will keep the red bull chugging tournament jerk away.

Not mutilating the things that were so right about 4th edition would have gone a long way toward moving the game along. The players who are so dedicated to arguing about every stupid little point of the rules so much that they need a second rulebook to patch the holes in the first one are the problem, and catering to them is not the solution.

warpcrafter wrote: Fifth edition sucks, and nobody can fix it.

Sig'd.

We had the same argument over the 4e Adepticon FAQ.

The majority verdict was that it's better to have a flawed FAQ than none, and that people who don't like it don't have to use it.

I've come up with a solution that is so simple and universal that I'm kicking myself for not having thought of it earlier. If player A and player B disagree about a rule, fine, they're entitled to their opinions. In player A's turn, his interpretation applies, and in player B's turn, is interpretation applies. They are both welcome to try and come up with the most broken, spam-a-riffic lists and the screwiest reading of the main rules they can and have absolutely no grounds for complaining if they get slaughtered, because they will most assuredly perform their own heinous wiping of the table with others once in awhile too. (I'm a big fan of the whole Warmachine page 5 state of mind.)

Damn. I mean, damn. Someone turn the emo down in here, I felt it a forum away.

If you nlike the INAT FAQ so much, and hate the concept of playing without it; then why not limit your play to opponents and venues that use it?

On the flip, if you hate the INAT FAQ so much, why not just limit your play to opponents and venues that do not use it?

Discussing the ins and outs, weighing opinions and options; things like this I can see as being part of a forums purpose. All this hating, either way? What the heck is the point? Emo release? Serious question, am I just missing the point of an online forum? People that talk to eachother like this in the streets get taken to the principals office.

What am I missing, folks? No, no it can't be. Don't say it. Are you really trying to hate your way to some kind of change in the system? Wait, let me get down on the floor before the laughter starts; I'll end up there anyway.

Killkrazy's argument. Yeah, he's just stupidly good. Succint, too. Exalt.

If you play against strangers under tournament conditions, then the FAQ is a necessary evil.

If you have the fortune to play with friends, under more leisurely and less competitive conditions, then the FAQ is irrelevant.

The notion that a rule works according to each player's turn is not helpful, as there are certain things that only happen on that player's own turn.

warpcrafter wrote:The players who are so dedicated to arguing about every stupid little point of the rules so much that they need a second rulebook to patch the holes in the first one are the problem,

Wait... so it's the fault of the players that the rulebook is not written better?


Seriously?


Well, I suppose in essence it's true... anyone who's been around a while knows the sort of rulebooks GW writes, and we keep buying them anyway. So to a certain extent, I guess we are to blame for them not being better.

Personally, while I would rarely have any need for an FAQ like this, I think that anything that leads to a clearer ruleset can only be a good thing, particularly in a tournament setting.

If you look at what actually changed from the 4E rulebook to the 5E rulebook, GW put considerable effort into clarifying things based on the previous FAQs.

To claim that GW rule are not written better belies the actual facts.

Now, that is different from claiming issues with balance / theme / complexity. But the rules themselves are quite good, all things considered.

JohnHwangDD wrote:If you play against strangers under tournament conditions, then the FAQ is a necessary evil.

Why do you need a whole other rulebook in addition to the existing rules just to play against strangers? Oh, I know, because in a competitive environment, civility goes out the window.

JohnHwangDD wrote:If you have the fortune to play with friends, under more leisurely and less competitive conditions, then the FAQ is irrelevant.

With more and more people succumbing to tourney mania, that's getting harder and harder to do.

JohnHwangDD wrote:The notion that a rule works according to each player's turn is not helpful, as there are certain things that only happen on that player's own turn.

Perhaps in isolation, certain things might seem unfair, but over the course of a game, it should even out.

warpcrafter wrote:Why do you need a whole other rulebook in addition to the existing rules just to play against strangers?

Because the current rulebook isn't complete, and has unclear rules and situations that simply aren't covered.


Nothing to do with a lack of civility. Tournaments should be about who is the better player, not who is more convincing at presenting their own rules interpretation.

You shouldn't need to come to an agreement over the rules in the middle of a competitive event. The rules should be clear for everyone involved right from the start.

Forgive me for my noobishness but why does it matter if there is a Tournament FAQ?

Presumably you can look at it before hand and if you really disagree with something dont use it ?

Deadshane1 wrote:...a thread quote and response from my flgs.

I don't respect them. If they did something useful then I might.... but trying to fix an intentionally broken system so people that subscribe to said system can try and play in a sponsored tournament using the same set of rules when there should never have been any rules ambiguity in the first place, just doesn't impress me. If it impresses you, sorry

People are still playing this "intentionally broken system" however....regardless.

They have done something useful, something that GW seems to encourage (claim some ownership of your hobby). They've gone through the trouble to scrutinise the rules and codexes looking for inconsistancies and attempted to make decent and fair judgements on issues that need fixing.

These guys are Adepticon regulars. They've constructed an all encompassing FAQ for the game of 40k so that Adepticon attendees will have rules clarifications to turn to when issues arise concerning conflicting or poorly written rules. They've taken that document which was professionally constructed to the best of their abilities and posted it online for others to use OR not use as they desire within their own tournements or 1up games. They've given it freely, without any expectations other than possibly a smoother gaming experiance for anyone who is a dedicated or casual 40k player.

I find that admirable. It impresses me, and I thank them for it.

-Deadshane

Indeed. I mean, look at GW's attitude toward FAQ's they publish. Quite understandably, due to the fallability of Humans, they state even their FAQ's are not so much *the* answer, as *an* answer. This is a Hobby. Embrace it, use what you want, change what you want.

ITT: Deadshane posts something stupid, people beat an already dead horse for 4+ pages.

Velsharoon wrote:Forgive me for my noobishness but why does it matter if there is a Tournament FAQ?

Presumably you can look at it before hand and if you really disagree with something dont use it ?

Well, thats the whole point of it. It's a single, freely and easily available document, which the organisers may choose to adopt for their Tournament. That way, every is singing from the same hymn sheet, rather than trying to make heads and tails of half a dozen seperate FAQ's which provide the answer one way for Army B, and then the other for Army C, whilst Army A has yet another interpretation.

All about the smooth running, and making things as unsurprising as possible.

These threads are priceless! I love it. Thank you ALL for the entertainment (except Killkrazy and Malfred, who had to go be mature and boring).

Keep slinging the mud, folks. And here's one that no one's said yet: "You're not my real dad! You can't tell me what to do!"

Iorek wrote:These threads are priceless! I love it. Thank you ALL for the entertainment (except Killkrazy and Malfred, who had to go be mature and boring).

Keep slinging the mud, folks. And here's one that no one's said yet: "You're not my real dad! You can't tell me what to do!"

"I learned it from watching you!"

What?

You're not my read dad! You can't tell me what do to!

Happy now?

Velsharoon wrote:Forgive me for my noobishness but why does it matter if there is a Tournament FAQ?

Presumably you can look at it before hand and if you really disagree with something dont use it ?

Its bad because a hand full of people should not be permitted to re-create the rules as they see fit. By creating the FAQ and basically saying "Here are the real rules! You shall all follow!" they have taken the GW rules and thrown them out.

We would not need FAQs, or anything of the sort if the lot of you would stop being childish little children and admit that you COULD BE WRONG! Did any one ever stop to think "Hey, maby GW is writing great rules because they leave SMALL things open for debate? This way we all have something that opens up a discussion about it and helps us all to learn the game better?"

No you didn't, your all to busy being childish about it and searching the rules for small holes you can use to cheat your way to a win. Thats why tornement play is so off putting to most players, because its not about your list or how you play, its how you can manipulate the rules to fit you and not your opponent.

Riiight. Actually, any FAQ is an attempt to prevent the very childish arguements you just posted about.

Whether I agree with an FAQ ruling or not, in a tournament is largely irrelevant. The FAQ serves to answer those occurences quickly and quietly, so you can get on with enjoying your game.

Consider them house rules if you so wish. They are there to cover discrepenancies and gaps in the rules which are hard to prevent 100% of the time.

Have they really taken the GW Rules and thrown them out? I very much doubt it. This is NOT some Interweb Nerd attempting to re-write his Codex. This is a group of likeminded gamers getting together to get a single volume of questions answered. They ask for feedback. They ask for opinions out side their own.

How can this be something of cheating, when they consider all other opinions and hold open debate?

JokerGod wrote:Its bad because a hand full of people should not be permitted to re-create the rules as they see fit. By creating the FAQ and basically saying "Here are the real rules! You shall all follow!" they have taken the GW rules and thrown them out.

We would not need FAQs, or anything of the sort if the lot of you would stop being childish little children and admit that you COULD BE WRONG! Did any one ever stop to think "Hey, maby GW is writing great rules because they leave SMALL things open for debate? This way we all have something that opens up a discussion about it and helps us all to learn the game better?"

No you didn't, your all to busy being childish about it and searching the rules for small holes you can use to cheat your way to a win. Thats why tornement play is so off putting to most players, because its not about your list or how you play, its how you can manipulate the rules to fit you and not your opponent.

They're not trying to recreate the rules. They're trying (imho) to plug the holes.

A lot of the rules shouldn't be necessary, but what happens when someone shows up with their 'converted' ork battlewagon that is small enough to hide behind a rhino? What happens when someone shows up with a Dark Angel army and argues that they should get 3+ Invul storm sheilds and their DH land raider crusader is a Heavy 4 rending assault cannon? How many points is a Space Wolf Rhino? Does a Warboss attached to a unit with a Painboy get FNP? In friendly play, a lof these issues are easily addressed, but I don't want to have a 20 minute arguement with someone in that situation.

And I'm sure that a number of the Council would agree that it is a little silly that the same wargear has different rules in different armies, but that is consistent with GW's new policy of Codex > Rulebook. You remember when GW tried to put out the Wargear book towards the end of fourth to correct the wargear problem? I don't know about anyone else, but I don't think anyone in my group even bought it.

And I don't think anyone on the Jedi - I mean FAQ - Council is advocating that they are "right". As Muhwe said, Lash was a problem last year and GW's official FAQ has a different ruling than what was used at Adepticon last year. But, a ruling needs to be made, and rather than have judges making on the spot rulings (and potentially inconsisent ones at that), and that is the purpose of the FAQ.

In a perfect world, there wouldn't be a need for the FAQ. Everyone would show up, be perfect gentlemen, and have a wonderful and sporting game. That doesn't happen as soon as one party feels the other is trying to take advantage of them.

And a lot of times, the nature of GW's release schedule, will cause problems. Either with a 3rd ed codex being used in fifth, or as happened last year, a fifth edition codex (DA) being used in fourth (Hey, I can drop pod everyone but the IC!).

I agree with some, that this is basically a big set of house rules. It's a well done and relatively complete version that will be updated. I don't agree with all the rulings. But, I admire the time and effort a bunch of gamers are willing to sink into this to try to make Adepticon the best possible gaming experience for people.

i think this faq is pointless but i can see its good use but i dont think it should be used anywhere else but adepticon, i also belive that every touny should have its own faq or we could all pray from here on until 6the ED that GW rights a usable rule book.