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.

If all of the major tournament and GT sponsors got together once a year and released a comprehensive set of rulings on different gray areas of the game would you adopt this into your local meta game as a way to resolve disputes?

I have only been playing this game for a year now and have noticed that what is lacking is real consensus on these matters. I would even be willing to donate to such a cause to help bring the various parties together.

I know that there are challenges to this sort of thing and some will say, great idea, but it will never happen, but we will never know if no one ever tries. If this forum gets an overwhelming response, I will plunk down some of my hard earned money to make this thing happen including a website to talk about it, and will give up my own time to help organize it.

I will also post this on Heresy online and BOLS as well.

We have also created a petition if you do support this idea at http://40kfaq.blogspot.com/

gannam wrote:If all of the major tournament and GT sponsors got together once a year and released a comprehensive set of rulings on different gray areas of the game would you adopt this into your local meta game as a way to resolve disputes?

I have only been playing this game for a year now and have noticed that what is lacking is real consensus on these matters. I would even be willing to donate to such a cause to help bring the various parties together.

I know that there are challenges to this sort of thing and some will say, great idea, but it will never happen, but we will never know if no one ever tries. If this forum gets an overwhelming response, I will plunk down some of my hard earned money to make this thing happen including a website to talk about it, and will give up my own time to help organize it.

I will also post this on Heresy online and BOLS as well.

...

Seriously?

Adepticon uses the INAT, if anything, you should use that. While I personally disagree with... well a lot of it, it's a common ground that the OFFICIAL FAQ for the largest Gaming Convention in the world.

Assuming such a document could actually be made, I would probably support it. I mean, INAT has a ton of very questionable calls IMO, but it's better than nothing and at least everyone's on the same page. You know what would be the best solution, though? If GW wrote cohesive, airtight rules and actually issued regular FAQs to address these constant problems. That'll never happen either.

Ah... yeah... I do support a standardized faq... INATFAQ.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
and why isn't "cupcakes!" an answer on this poll?

I understand that INAT is widely used in the community but there are several sectors that will not use it. I am only trying to be completely fair to those folks.

On the bright side, I'm sure that Yakface and the others on the INAT FAQ people would be more than willing to commiserate and trade abuse stories with any other parties trying to put comprehensive FAQ's together. So if you do try to put your own FAQ together, don't feel bad when people hate you because of the rulings in it.

gannam wrote:I understand that INAT is widely used in the community but there are several sectors that will not use it.

You're going to have that problem with any fan-made FAQ. You'll never get any substantial number of gamers to agree on all of the FAQ-worthy issues. And there are those on this hobby who will just flat out refuse to use an FAQ that contains rulings that they disagree with.

Yep, but I still think its a worthy endevour

I'm not saying it's not worth doing. Just that choosing to start over because some people don't like the INAT won't necessarily get you any wider coverage than the INAT has...

I would support a new supplemental book put out by Games Workshop that has amendments to all debated topics on all exsisting forums that deal with the current edition 40K rules and codexes.

It should be called the "Here, now shut the hell up and play!" rule book.

They use to do that in WD and also printed books called,

CHAPTER APPROVED.

Cupcakes! Sometimes, you have to make your own answers.
I would totally volunteer to do it for free for GW, just because of the joy it would cause to thousands of gamers around the world.

Nightwatch wrote:Cupcakes! Sometimes, you have to make your own answers.
I would totally volunteer to do it for free for GW, just because of the joy it would cause to thousands of gamers around the world.

I already Did

And that is why everyone always points to your FAQ's for the definitive answer...

The only way it would become widely used is if GW wrote it and didn't say it was a "house" rule. If they wrote a erata like faq then we would be set but for some reason they would rather have people arguing at every 3rd special rule in the game.

Twalks wrote:The only way it would become widely used is if GW wrote it and didn't say it was a "house" rule.

Meh... they say the current FAQ's are essentially house rules... but they're still used by (at least from my experience) the vast majority of players.

And most of the tournaments I have been to also say to bring any relevant GW FAQ for your army.

insaniak wrote:

gannam wrote:I understand that INAT is widely used in the community but there are several sectors that will not use it.

You're going to have that problem with any fan-made FAQ. You'll never get any substantial number of gamers to agree on all of the FAQ-worthy issues. And there are those on this hobby who will just flat out refuse to use an FAQ that contains rulings that they disagree with.

Hell, you have that problem when running a GW event using GW FAQs. Been there, done that. It was really amusing when a player at the Baltimore Games Day tourney told me (the Head Judge) that the GW FAQ is wrong. While he can indeed disagree, what rules did he think we'd be using at a GW event?

My take has two parts to it. First I would not support it, as I would be forced to pick out of a dex via what somebody else thinks I should have. Next if a new dex drops, how is that going to be handled?

Nothing is perfect and if somebody docs me for building a list. Then there not going to see my list at their event ever again. I know we have grey area but move on people and stop trying to find the perfect set up. As it sets the tourny that was anounced in Texas has a major issue in that you get docked points for pulling to much from parts of your tree. I myself wanted to make a themed army, then again per the rules I would get docked for having to many selections in one area...



Now there are other areas of the tourny that could use a standardized faq to support game play.

Tarval wrote:My take has two parts to it. First I would not support it, as I would be forced to pick out of a dex via what somebody else thinks I should have. Next if a new dex drops, how is that going to be handled?

Nothing is perfect and if somebody docs me for building a list. Then there not going to see my list at their event ever again. I know we have grey area but move on people and stop trying to find the perfect set up. As it sets the tourny that was anounced in Texas has a major issue in that you get docked points for pulling to much from parts of your tree. I myself wanted to make a themed army, then again per the rules I would get docked for having to many selections in one area...

Now there are other areas of the tourny that could use a standardized faq to support game play.

HUH? Tarval, FAQs, not Comp scoring. Totally separate issues.

If all of the major tournament and GT sponsors got together once a year and released a comprehensive set of rulings on different gray areas of the game would you adopt this into your local meta game as a way to resolve disputes?

The first line of the whole thread!!!!



Sucka punch /block

/upper cut to the middle


1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 your OUT.

Right, grey areas. Rules, not army composition................. Comp scoring is a totally different thing from FAQs on grey areas of the rules.

I mean, I agree with you regarding Comp scoring, a legal list is a legal list.

Tarval, what are you talking about? Either post something on topic or get off the thread.

Gannam- You are talking about reinventing the wheel. INAT and Gwar’s FAQ already do exactly what you’re talking about. Any new FAQ will ALWAYS have the same problem of less-than-100% acceptance in the community, and for the exact same reasons. The rules are ambiguous, and people always disagree with some of the rulings.

I cannot presently imagine any FAQ being more comprehensive or better-executed than the INAT FAQ.

Well, couple of questions that you need to consider...that spring to mind..

Who is going to determine what is included in the FAQ?

Who is going to determine what a “major” tournament event is ?

What happens when those events no longer are held and they hold prominent positions in the production of this document? As events come and go each and every year.

What happens when segments the internet community verbally attack and insult the individuals of this group, and one of the member fails to show restraint responding in a fashion that reflects poorly on the work of the whole?

What happens when one member of the group gets bent of out shape over a rule call and pulls his event out of using it?

Whose going to cover the costs associated with producing it?


The question is reasonable enough but the reality is a lot harder road to haul.

With all due respect to Gwar, INAT counsel, and the various parties found around the globe that take on this effort, I would have to respond to this poll with a loud and blatant - hell yeah!

The fact that Gwar and INAT differ, the reason we have 10+ page debates, the lack of GW appreciation for core rules loop holes is evidence enough.

If a real approach could be made to unify and clarify rules interpretations, that would be outstanding.

The largest problem would be getting GW blessing. I don't think such an effort can really be fruitful if at some point, you don't get a nod from the designers.

If that was unattainable, then you would be wise to get the largest player bases on board with your idea. AdeptiCon is the largest 'player hosted' GW event in the US that I'm aware of. Getting them on board would be a good start... (especially since there is more than one person that does not agree with several of their current interpretations in v3.2...)

Also, there needs to be principles designed into the way such a group would work.

Examples:
- We stick as close to RAW as possible
- Interpretations will be conservative, we do not 'rules design from the bench' we simply rule for clarity
- We place preference to clarify in main rules where possible, and avoid codex clarifications unless necessary
- Where two rules are in effect, we will determine a way to apply both rules and work to avoid a 4+ roll off as a last resort

Examples of a bad calls in rules interpretation:
- We think the model is too expensive for what it does in RAW. So we allowed it to do X instead...
- The fluff supports it. We don't think it's to powerful this way. We really think this is what it should do in the game anyway...
- Though the main rules are a bit vague, we opted to clarify 'a situation' by unit instead. This allows players looking up that unit clarity on how it is played...

I sincerely wish you "Good Luck" in this endeavor, I do not see this as a small or simplistic undertaking. Unlike others, I think it is an achievable goal, but the result may not justify the required effort to see the goal come to fruition.

If you take this on, "God speed" to your results,

Tac

Mannahnin wrote:Tarval, what are you talking about? Either post something on topic or get off the thread.

Gannam- You are talking about reinventing the wheel. INAT and Gwar’s FAQ already do exactly what you’re talking about. Any new FAQ will ALWAYS have the same problem of less-than-100% acceptance in the community, and for the exact same reasons. The rules are ambiguous, and people always disagree with some of the rulings.

I cannot presently imagine any FAQ being more comprehensive or better-executed than the INAT FAQ.

No disrespect to what the INAT council and Gwar have done, but their are instances where the INAT has ruled on something just because they ruled on something completely different from a different codex and thus don't want to break their own trend (hive commander versus autarch ruling). In the case of Gwar, when the GW FAQ did not coincide with his FAQ, he announced that he would refuse to play the GW FAQ. What makes his FAQ supersede the GW FAQ other then his own opinion or pride?

So while both parties have taken upon themselves to do this "charity" work for the gaming masses, there also seems to be a invested interest in announcing their FAQs are "right" all the time.

Brother Ramses wrote:No disrespect to what the INAT council and Gwar have done, but their are instances where the INAT has ruled on something just because they ruled on something completely different from a different codex and thus don't want to break their own trend (hive commander versus autarch ruling).

What?!? They try to be consistent in their rulings in an attempt to avoid appearing arbitrary and capricious and you consider that a problem. In what bizarro world does your position, that rulings should be inconsistent between codices, make sense?

So while both parties have taken upon themselves to do this "charity" work for the gaming masses, there also seems to be a invested interest in announcing their FAQs are "right" all the time.

As opposed to the vested interest of the parties who campaign against the FAQs because they disagree with the rulings or a different ruling would benefit their army more?

gannam,

What you propose is virtuous and a nice idea, but ultimately flawed. People are not willing to accept a "fair and balanced" faq as being fair and balanced. There are those who argue and don't accept GW made FAQs. What makes you think they would accept a third party? Hypothetically, if you did realize this goal, and such a document was created, I believe wholeheartedly that 3 months down the line, people would get together and complain about how many "rule changes" your document made and somewhere on a forum, a user named "mannag" would denounce the "gannam document" and zealously propose the idea of inventing a well thought out comprehensive set of rulings on ambiguous rules hopefully backed by major TOs.

Bottom line, people agree to disagree. Looking beyond something as trivial as a game, people can't even get the law straight. 40k rules are like the US Constitution; just as ambiguous to those who want it to be, and any attempt to "fix" it would only make things worse.

The dialog going on about this topic is a great thing to see. Please remember that this thread is also going on at the following links.

Please feel free to jump in and share your opinion.

http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?p=56453&posted=1#post56453

http://www.heresy-online.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=17

Lofty idea, but it will never, ever, never happen. World Peace has a better chance than a standardized FAQ for 40K.