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.

When you go play in the UKGT with their "house rules" guess what? I guess you aren't playing 40K, you're apparently playing "UKGT 40K" designed by the event organizer who wrote his FAQ.

And I have never seen anyone try to get people outside of the UK GT to use that FAQ either.

I suppose that is one way to look at things. But again, I'd point out that people will naturally play the game differently and as I wrote in the FAQ afterword, this a TOURNAMENT FAQ. And a while a tournament may be about crowning winners, is also about giving a pleasurable experience to as many atendees as possible. No one I've ever met enjoys arguments during their games, and I firmly believe that this FAQ will create less in-game arguments than ever before for the reasons that I outline in the document's afterword.

However, when you're talking about a TOURNAMENT where (again) the GOAL of any good tournament is to make an enjoyable time for as many people as possible, by ruling with the way the majority plays you create an atmosphere with the least possible arguments.

Isn't that the goal of every game of 40k? It seems like most games tournament or not are resolved with minimal rules conflict without the need for such a far reaching FAQ. You can say this is only for tournaments but if you want this to be a broad, multiuse tournamnet you really are advocating for this to be used in every game of 40k. The reason most people play the game sizes they do is because of the tournament scene (or you only have X points). I alsoquestion whether having an additional rulebook will really result in a more pleasurable play experience for most people. For hard core tournament player who know it inside and out, they will win more, be able to resolve arguments quicker, and have a better experience. But for Bob the new guy, who even if he knows about this FAQ probably doesn't know it that well, will have a rules change thrown on him. This will result in a negative game experience, IMO. God forbid someone who doesn't frequent these forums trys to attend an event using this FAQ. That is why I argue that a more conservative approach should have been taken when making the FAQ.

Everyone complaining about the FAQ can just not use it.

If you don't like it, don't go to Adepticaon or any other tournament that decides to adopt it as standard.

When in friendly games the other guys suggest using the Adepticaon FAQ, just refuse.

If however you support FAQs generally but disagree with some of the content in this one, either make your own FAQ or at least help the Adepticon committee improve it by offering sensible criticism.

Killkrazy- Sadly it's not that easy. If they had left the label as "Adepticon FAQ" then you are completely correct. Just don't go to Adepticon if it is that big of a deal. However as the "National Correct Way to Play 40k FAQ" it will split the gaming community into FAQ users and Non-FAQ users. Some of my best tournament games have been againist FAQ users and I don't want them to avoid my events because I'm not using the FAQ. And to be honest this FAQ won't keep me from attending Adepticon. It is there tournament and they should be able to run it however they want. I'm arguing aganist the spreading of this FAQ to the wider 40k world as I think it will have a clear negative impact. As far as offering "senisble criticism" I hope that is what I am doing here. I'm less concerned with any of the specific rules as I am the scope of the FAQ.

This FAQ, whatever its flaws is the biggest and best anyone has put out.

It is assembled by an identified committee rather than shadowy figures in darkened rooms. It is annotated clearly to show what they have done and why. They are willing to accept reasonable argument and popular opinion via polls in order to do updates and corrections.

To argue against the FAQ spreading to the wider world seems to me futile. It will spread by itself or not, depending on its merits.

The FAQ cannot be imposed on anyone, so people running their own tournaments can continue to use their own if they wish.

It will not split players into factions any more than they are now by the variety of different incomplete FAQ documents on offer (leaving aside those players who do not use any FAQs.)

I expect it will be widely used because it fulfills a need.

Alot of work went into the FAQ and it is well laid out with plenty of examples/illustrations to help people understand the intent. There does look to be a lot of house rules but everyone who takes the time to fully digest the tome will be on the same page.

- G

My only disagreements with the FAQ are the overruling of GW FAQs along with a few rules changes that were clearly defined.

The Dark Eldar FAQ comes to mind as well as the Eldar Guardian weapons platform come to mind. For me it has a feel like rewriting the rules or as Selek says: meddling.

Overall its a great effort done by the team but like with any document, it is still open for change and this is the forum to provide some constructive criticism. I only ask the Dakka community not to crucify anyone who do not agree with the FAQ. Were all here to share our thoughts and ideas. Besides Americans have had the Constitution since 1787 and we have been arguing about that document ever since. Let give our input and work on make it a better document we can mostly agree on.

I just would like to say that all of the references to assaulting from a drop pod are incorrect.

If you assault from a drop pod on the turn it arrives even tho the drop pod is open topped, you break the deep strike rules.

Thus, no assaulting from drop pods on the turn they arrive.

thehod wrote:Let give our input and work on make it a better document we can mostly agree on.

That's exactly what we need to do. This is a great basis for a document that can bring consistency to 40K no matter where you go.

Steiner - people will still travel to events whether they use this FAQ or not. It all depends on the quality of the event when it comes down to it. A FAQ is not going to make or break the event. That does not mean though that player experiences could not be better.

Now on the flip side - "Bob the new guy" is most likely going to have new rules or clarifications popped on him at any event. He is new and there is a definite learning curve. One would not expect him to have every rule or FAQ down pat. That's the difference between veterans and "new guys". The idea behind this is to bring consistency to the rulings so that "Bob the new guy" and veterans for that matter don't go to multiple events and get tons of different rulings, which significantly detracts from "his" experience. Even as a veteran, I have had a lot of different rulings for the same questions at many events. And it sucks big time. If it sucks for me, then it probably will suck for "Bob the new guy".

So as Hod said above - we ask that you give your input on what issues you see and help to make it a better document. You play under one game system that everyone attempts to use (ie: the 40K rule book - which is flawed to no end). Why not work to play under one FAQ (which is attempting to remove these flaws)?

The rule of FAQ's is that it doesn't matter what the ruling actually is, but rather that the ruling is out there and known/made accessible before hand so someone isn't surprised in the middle of a game after making moves with the (mistaken) understanding of what the rule actually is.

I've been surprised many times by 'house rules' in the middle of a tournament. Makes it a bad experience for me, and makes me look like I'm trying to exploit the rules to the other guy, just because the 'house' doesn't like following some rules.

They also have "primers" where people can
get used to the format of the scenarios, the FAQs, etc. I
haven't gone, but they seem like mini-tournaments.

thehod wrote: My only disagreements with the FAQ are the overruling of GW FAQs along with a few rules changes that were clearly defined.

The Dark Eldar FAQ comes to mind as well as the Eldar Guardian weapons platform come to mind. For me it has a feel like rewriting the rules or as Selek says: meddling.

Overall its a great effort done by the team but like with any document, it is still open for change and this is the forum to provide some constructive criticism. I only ask the Dakka community not to crucify anyone who do not agree with the FAQ. Were all here to share our thoughts and ideas. Besides Americans have had the Constitution since 1787 and we have been arguing about that document ever since. Let give our input and work on make it a better document we can mostly agree on.

A very good message.

We should not crucify people who have arguments with individual rullings.

However I am against people who say we should have lots of FAQs or none. The best situation is one FAQ which everybody uses, and can be modified if problems arise. Ideally that should be provided by GW, to make it official, but as they won't do it I am glad that the Adepticon crew stepped into the breach.

A very good message.

We should not crucify people who have arguments with individual rullings.

However I am against people who say we should have lots of FAQs or none. The best situation is one FAQ which everybody uses, and can be modified if problems arise. Ideally that should be provided by GW, to make it official, but as they won't do it I am glad that the Adepticon crew stepped into the breach.

Agreed.
Capt K

Not to be a troublemaker but one and only FAQ for the entire market sounds a heck of a lot like a dictatorship. It is also a pipe dream at best.

- G

Yes, multiple FAQs that no one agrees on is much, much better.

sigh.

It's only a dictatorship if you want to believe it is so. It is a FAQ made up from discussions and polls on here and many places. Not sure exactly how that equals a dictatorship, but this is the same crowd that thinks everything is a conspiracy.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Not to be a troublemaker but one and only FAQ for the entire market sounds a heck of a lot like a dictatorship. It is also a pipe dream at best.

One and only FAQ for the entire market sounds like something that GW should've done a long time ago! Oh wait! That was fourth edition. Then it needed a FAQ. Oh wait! That will be fifth edition. I can't wait until we start seeing the latest playtest 5th Ed. FAQ.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Not to be a troublemaker but one and only FAQ for the entire market sounds a heck of a lot like a dictatorship. It is also a pipe dream at best.

- G

That is just ridiculous. The FAQ changes where made with majority concensus on multiple forums.

Toreador wrote:and nevermind, found my answer, but it does bring up the rules changes.

In the FAQ we are now allowed to attach IC's with units that are coming in reserve, and or mark units to come in with a non-dedicated transport. In escalation missions this has a huge effect on the game (mounted Harlequins, mounted Fire Dragons, Terminators in a non dedicated Land Raider) While these make sense, and I know everyone has thought about changing them at one point or another, do they really need changed, or should we change them. Most every tourney I have seen we have not been allowed to do what the above rule change does, and by allowing it, it changes the meta game considerably in any missions with escalation. Oddly, I find it very hard to stomach that rule change after believing it should be changed, but only because it is an unofficial ruling that has a major impact on people using these rules. An impact that as far as I know won't be used in any of the official GW tourneys.

It's an odd feeling.

This is a very valid concern especially because, IMO this is one of the few rulings in the FAQ that really does change the game pretty signifigantly. But the issue was this:

The new codices (from the Eldar on) don't allow characters to purchase retinue units that they start the game attached to. This means there is absolutely no way to ensure that your character can start the game mounted in a vehicle.

This is especially noticable if you play an all mechanized army such as KOS or mech Eldar and you play an Escalation mission where for some bizarre reason your character is the only model left sitting on the battlefield as he can't start the game in Reserve. Of course, in these situations you can always take bike-mounted characters (which do start off the table), but I think the point is clear.

More noticable is with the DA, BA & BTs (because of the Emperor's Champion), all of whom cannot field an entire drop pod armies because they will always have a character running around the table on his own like an idiot.


So for a FAQ ruling that leaves one of three options:

A) Leave the rule as is which doesn't allow DAs, BAs & BTs to field drop pod armies and forces Eldar and Ork players to take bike-mounted ICs in their army if they want to keep the army together in an Escalation mission.
B) Change the rules so that only certain armies (like BAs, DAs & BTs, for example) are allowed to start their characters in a Drop Pod.
C) Change the rules completely so that all armies can hold units in reserve if they have a transport unit that is in Reserve.



Our original ruling (before the FAQ was published) was 'A'. It was just going to be 'tough luck' for those BA, DA & BT players who wanted to use drop pod armies.

But with the leaked 5th edition PDF it became pretty clear that GW is moving towards a position where you are allowed to mount your units in transports in reserve and then make a single roll for all of them to arrive together. I believe that regardless of how the 5th edition rules change to their final version, that rule will be in existance simply because of the way they are writing codices now there just isn't really any other choice.

So a decision was made because we know a lot of people have seen the leaked PDF and because the rules really do deny a few army types from being fielded that we would make this signifigant rules change.

ok i spoke to a rep at gw today
not surprisingly was his answer of i dont care

ok thats fine thats typical GW they dont care what the players think only their bottom line thats why they are losing money hand over fist.

now on to the topic

"First up is the notion that this is "Adepticon 40K" as opposed to some sort of percieved "real" 40K. Anyone who has attended a national 40K tournament quickly figures out that there is not just one way to play 40K as almost every regional group has interpreted the game in some small way.

This is exactly what you call adepticon 40k. you took rules already established by the company and changed them because you didnt like the rules they imposed.

my whole beef with this is the fact you are part of their tournament circuit but yet you feel the 5 or 6 of you have the right to change the rules as you see fit.


""The only difference between any of those other FAQs and ours is that we have actually come out and said where we feel we're changing the rules. Oh, and the fact that this is easily the most comprehensive, well-laid out, cross-referenced and consistent event FAQ ever published. I don't want to forget those parts either. But in many ways we're taking the blows for being a FAQ that is finally honest about its changes""

thats just it you changed the rules as YOU see fit.. that right there says all i need to know about it

it is not your taking blows for doing the work in fact alot of people applaud you for doing what we have all been doing for years

where your taking hits is your making your changes to a national level event without the neccesary credentials to be able to do this in the first place

forgive me if im wrong but you dont work for GW yor not part of the rules development team and while Adepticon is an indy gt it is part of the GAMES WORKSHOP TOURNAMENT CIRCUIT... which means you follow their rules

im sorry but if that is how things are going to be run, my team will not be attending. we have already cancelled our reservations and have decided we are not going to be attending

and this will be my last comment on this subject i endorse your faq whole heartedly it is very concise and clear if you had submitted it to gw and they said yup thats cool with us then id have no problem .. but to make the changes on your own smacks of good ole boys setting things up for their friends..

yakface wrote:

Toreador wrote:and nevermind, found my answer, but it does bring up the rules changes.

In the FAQ we are now allowed to attach IC's with units that are coming in reserve, and or mark units to come in with a non-dedicated transport. In escalation missions this has a huge effect on the game (mounted Harlequins, mounted Fire Dragons, Terminators in a non dedicated Land Raider) While these make sense, and I know everyone has thought about changing them at one point or another, do they really need changed, or should we change them. Most every tourney I have seen we have not been allowed to do what the above rule change does, and by allowing it, it changes the meta game considerably in any missions with escalation. Oddly, I find it very hard to stomach that rule change after believing it should be changed, but only because it is an unofficial ruling that has a major impact on people using these rules. An impact that as far as I know won't be used in any of the official GW tourneys.

It's an odd feeling.

This is a very valid concern especially because, IMO this is one of the few rulings in the FAQ that really does change the game pretty signifigantly. But the issue was this:

The new codices (from the Eldar on) don't allow characters to purchase retinue units that they start the game attached to. This means there is absolutely no way to ensure that your character can start the game mounted in a vehicle.

This is especially noticable if you play an all mechanized army such as KOS or mech Eldar and you play an Escalation mission where for some bizarre reason your character is the only model left sitting on the battlefield as he can't start the game in Reserve. Of course, in these situations you can always take bike-mounted characters (which do start off the table), but I think the point is clear.

More noticable is with the DA, BA & BTs (because of the Emperor's Champion), all of whom cannot field an entire drop pod armies because they will always have a character running around the table on his own like an idiot.


So for a FAQ ruling that leaves one of three options:

A) Leave the rule as is which doesn't allow DAs, BAs & BTs to field drop pod armies and forces Eldar and Ork players to take bike-mounted ICs in their army if they want to keep the army together in an Escalation mission.
B) Change the rules so that only certain armies (like BAs, DAs & BTs, for example) are allowed to start their characters in a Drop Pod.
C) Change the rules completely so that all armies can hold units in reserve if they have a transport unit that is in Reserve.



Our original ruling (before the FAQ was published) was 'A'. It was just going to be 'tough luck' for those BA, DA & BT players who wanted to use drop pod armies.

But with the leaked 5th edition PDF it became pretty clear that GW is moving towards a position where you are allowed to mount your units in transports in reserve and then make a single roll for all of them to arrive together. I believe that regardless of how the 5th edition rules change to their final version, that rule will be in existance simply because of the way they are writing codices now there just isn't really any other choice.

So a decision was made because we know a lot of people have seen the leaked PDF and because the rules really do deny a few army types from being fielded that we would make this signifigant rules change.

you made your rules changes based on the leaked pdf? omfg

you have got to be kidding me

then i was absolutely right you guys made your rules changes because you didnt like the way they ruled you have no defense im sorry im out of here

Rle68 wrote:

you made your rules changes based on the leaked pdf? omfg

you have got to be kidding me

then i was absolutely right you guys made your rules changes because you didnt like the way they ruled you have no defense im sorry im out of here

We didn't like the way who ruled? GW's rulebook FAQ in principle supports the exact ruling we made except for the fact that they didn't address that characters don't appear to be able to be held in Reserve in Escalation missions (which is the whole crux of the problem).

This ruling was not made based on the leaked PDF. It was made on a number of factors (as I explained) one which being the fact that the leaked PDF reveals a likely future regarding the issue and since many players have seen the PDF they are likely to be alright with the ruling.

The ruling is essentially for Blood Angel, Dark Angel and Black Templar players who are currently unable to field all drop pod armies by the RAW. I don't play any of these armies, nor do any of the members of the council (to my knowledge) nor do any of "their friends".

It is for the PLAYERS whose armies have been made essentially unplayable by what is almost certainly a loophole in the rules because of the development of 5th edition and its effects on the codices being currently released.


I am sorry you won't be attending, but frankly I'm a little surprised at your niavete on this issue. There have been quite a few event FAQs released used by tournaments in the past and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM has "changed" the rules as the tournament organizer sees fit. That's exactly what a tournament organizer is able to do: to set the rules as they see fit and then you are able to either choose to come to their tournament or not. A T.O. could say: No MEQ armies allowed at this tournament, and if that's what they want, that's what the tournament is going to be.

Kilkrazy wrote:The FAQ cannot be imposed on anyone, so people running their own tournaments can continue to use their own if they wish.

It cannot be imposed on anyone?

So the local RTT's can go eff themselves and their 'silly' rules without the almighty FAQ, but if we show up to play at a Indy:

THE FAQ IS IMPOSED ON US.

If people want to play miniature game developer, there are alot of places willing to take nascent game designers on.

I know the game is flawed, but adding another player-created layer of flaws is as they say "BAD".

Not having a official FAQ from GW is in my honest opinion, as bad as having a rules committee made up of players running regional tournaments pushing their own FAQ on us.

GW has been lying to us for years about 40K FAQ's. Now we have to accept a player-based FAQ that is so full of meddling it's a rewrite of the game without input from the very same game company that can't manage a FAQ because their own ineptitude is so massive?

Lots of new players will in my estimate not be very pleased when they show up at a Indy and see a FAQ with more rules in it than the rulebook. The experienced players will have a field day with Adepticon 40K rules.

Oh and just so I'm not being a dark cloud, here's the silver lining: This FAQ can so mess up the game and cause so many issues at GW events, that GW will have to get off their ass and issue some FAQ's. That said, I think it'll just mess the game up and GW will continue to do nothing.

My overall response?

Thanks, but no thanks.

Effort appreciated, effort acknowledged, bin the whole kit and instead engage GW in making a cohesive FAQ.

Good luck with that effort, if you choose to make it.

Tournaments always have and always will have their own set of rules from missions to scoring that players have to abide by if they choose to play in the tournament. No one forces you to attend the tournament but you do have to accept whatever rules they choose to utilize.

If a TO wants to use this FAQ for their tournament, great! If you don't like the FAQ you will now have an easy way of telling which tournaments you want to avoid.


But I do want to make sure that everyone knows besides all the arguments we're still looking for feedback from people who would like to help improve this FAQ with constructive criticism.

Stelek wrote:
Effort appreciated, effort acknowledged, bin the whole kit and instead engage GW in making a cohesive FAQ.

Gee, is that all we have to do is engage GW in making a FAQ?

That is simple! Ok everyone, let’s engage them! Because I guess up until we do that they did not know there is a ton of problems with there rules. I guess that when Phil Kelly had a million questions that asked him about the Eldar codex and he said that Alisso was working on a FAQ that should be out shortly (that was 8 months ago), that they forget about it unless somebody engages them.

And Stelek, since you only play in one store, and you run the RTTs there, I would not sweat this FAQ. This is more for those people who travel to events that want to be on the same page as there opponents.

Also I do not see where any of the rules greatly benefit certain armies. They seem like they are mostly rulings over frequently debated rules. I was thinking about using Ahriman at the circuit invitational, but he had a ruling that was unfavorable. So what? That changes things a little, but I am aware of the debate regarding him, and I was disappointed by this ruling, I am not surprised by it.

Are there any rulings that completely gimp an army, or changes the game so radically that it is now unplayable for certain armies?

yakface wrote:
Tournaments always have and always will have their own set of rules from missions to scoring that players have to abide by if they choose to play in the tournament. No one forces you to attend the tournament but you do have to accept whatever rules they choose to utilize.

If a TO wants to use this FAQ for their tournament, great! If you don't like the FAQ you will now have an easy way of telling which tournaments you want to avoid.


But I do want to make sure that everyone knows besides all the arguments we're still looking for feedback from people who would like to help improve this FAQ with constructive criticism.

Actually I don't know what the bloody hell 'missions' and 'scoring' has to do with remaking 40K with a major rules rewrite.

The rules people 'choose to utilize' at local tournaments are the GW rules, flawed as they may be.

How would I know what 'FAQ' someone is or isn't using--call them up and ask if they're using the Adepticon 40K rules or the GW 40K rules?

Are you serious?

The sheer size of the FAQ alone is more than enough to stifle interest in reading the whole thing. It seems those that read the whole thing are none too happy with the meddling that's gone on. Is that a clue?

Blackmoor wrote:And Stelek, since you only play in one store, and you run the RTTs there, I would not sweat this FAQ. This is more for those people who travel to events that want to be on the same page as there opponents.

Can you stop promulgating that lie already? It's getting old.

Blackmoor wrote:
Also I do not see where any of the rules greatly benefit certain armies.

Open your eyes.

Blackmoor wrote:
Are there any rulings that completely gimp an army, or changes the game so radically that it is now unplayable for certain armies?

I mentioned quite a few. You can rebut any time.

Edit:

Skyth, Comments like that can only help to derail the situation further.


--yakface

Stelek wrote:
Actually I don't know what the bloody hell 'missions' and 'scoring' has to do with remaking 40K with a major rules rewrite.

Tournament organizers often use custom missions for their tournaments. Each of those custom missions constitutes a change in rules for the game. In a many cases, custom missions represent a larger change to the way a game of 40K is played more than a FAQ ever will. Many tournaments utilize comp/sportsmanship scores, each of which will have an impact on the way the game is played and/or armies are constructed. Again, these are changes to the game authorized by the tournament organizer.

Finally, many tournaments ALREADY use event or store FAQs that alter the game to fit the way the tournament organizer or local players interpret some of the rules issues.

The rules people 'choose to utilize' at local tournaments are the GW rules, flawed as they may be.

Except that each and every person shows up with their own version of the rules in their head which is exactly what creates arguments at a tournament and which is why many stores and tournaments come up with their own set of house rules and/or FAQs.

How would I know what 'FAQ' someone is or isn't using--call them up and ask if they're using the Adepticon 40K rules or the GW 40K rules?

The same way anyone finds out what rules a tournament utilizes. Either the tournament orgaizer posts the information or you call and ask them. For example, a tournament organizer will usually post their list of tournament rules: "Armies are XX numbers of points, the following armies will be allowed, sportsmanship will be judged on the following". In that list of rules it would be ridiculously easy to say: "We will be using this FAQ for our tournament, it can be downloaded from the internet here."

Are you serious?

The sheer size of the FAQ alone is more than enough to stifle interest in reading the whole thing. It seems those that read the whole thing are none too happy with the meddling that's gone on. Is that a clue?

That is a ridiculous generalization. I understand that you don't care for the FAQ, I understand that you think it is meddling and I understand that you think it does more harm than good. You honestly don't need to post any of these things anymore.

Yak - for what it is worth, the endeavor that is being undertaken here has the full support of the entire Toledo group. Even though we do not agree with every ruling, we believe this document provides a solid fundamental basis for creating a better overall experience for everyone by minimizing rules conflicts. It is a document that is sorely needed in the community and we appreciate the efforts of everyone involved.

I have a much better idea. Hide this FAQ from public view and just have all the judges rule on any dispute based on what is written in this FAQ. The nimwits who complain won't have to know where the judges are basing their rulings on and when they can't play the way they thought they could, they will have accept it. The judge has the final say afterall.

There is no need to let everyone see how you will rule a dispute beforehand when a minority (AND IT IS A MINORITY) complain, complain, complain. The judges rules are final, right or wrong. This has been standard tournament fare for as long as I can remember so just make the rulings at the moment and use this FAQ, but don't show anyone.

When I was running the Gladiator Jeff would also worry about having strict rules so players wouldn't try to take advantage of the tournament. I told him to keep the rules vague, but tell players any cheating would get them thrown out. If players don't know how far they can take the rules, they are less likely to try and bend the rules, especially when I let it be know I had no reservations of throwing them out. Very few rules arguments and virtually no cheating followed.

Darth, that is the most ridiculous nonsense ever. This FAQ attempts to make everything transparent so that there are no disputes between two players that meet up from anywhere and decide to play a game.

Whether you agree or disagree, you can't argue that as long as both people know the same rules, there will be much fewer rules disputes. And for that, this FAQ does an excellent job.

AND, this FAQ was not dreamed up at random. It was a comprehensive effort, through the use of opinion polls and actual rules question threads from Dakka as well as many other forums. So enough with the whole conspiracy theory crap already, its really tiring.