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.

White - Just a side note: He can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that some of Darth's comments purposely being facetious.

One quick side note - what is better?

Option #1: Having an 88 page FAQ to review for grey areas?

Option #2: Having to look through for example Dakka Dakka's 1,800+ rules discussion threads with 24,000+ messages to determine how people can expect to play everything?

Just some food for thought.

That was extremely generous of the group (whomever it is) to offer their time for something that obviously took quite a bit of work.

That said, it seems from Yaks post you guys knew 5th was coming out yet continued working on it. Why? All of your work will be invalidated in 5-7 months? Adepticon and a handful of tournaments...and even then there seems to be resentment towards the rulings.

I think this is a great idea for vets but I don't know about the masses.

Thanks very much, Yak, for the description of the reasoning behind the Escalation ruling. I (for one) had forgotten about the issue with BT, DA, and BA pod armies, and given that factor, it makes perfect sense and I agree that this is the optimal compromise needed to keep things consistent.

I think the sheer number of answers labeled as changes is giving a lot of people the heebie-jeebies. I think your conservatism in using the phrase [rules change] every time you weren’t sure whether you were making a change or just a [clarification] is the root of a lot of people’s anxiety and displeasure. They’re too accustomed to people erring the other way, and thus they genuinely think there are fewer gaps and unresolved issues in the core rules than there really are. Maybe on the next revision you should switch some more of the questions where you were on the fence about whether it was really a change or just a clarification over to being labeled as [clarification]s. Just to make the document less frightening.

AgeOfEgos wrote:That was extremely generous of the group (whomever it is) to offer their time for something that obviously took quite a bit of work.

That said, it seems from Yaks post you guys knew 5th was coming out yet continued working on it. Why? All of your work will be invalidated in 5-7 months? Adepticon and a handful of tournaments...and even then there seems to be resentment towards the rulings.

I think this is a great idea for vets but I don't know about the masses.

Well, I've been working on some sort of FAQ for several years now. It started out as just a collection of questions (the "Dakka FAQ") back when GW actually wrote fairly regular FAQs I had dreamed of maybe being able to submit it someday for consideration.

As I realized that would never happen (as their FAQ output dwindled to nothing) someone mentioned in a forum why didn't someone just answer all the questions so that some sort of unofficial FAQ document could be made for those who wanted to use it.

As I was working on creating that (the "Yak FAQ"), last year's adepticon FAQ came out and I noticed that they had used a whole bunch of questions from the original "Dakka" FAQ. The problem was, the Dakka FAQ questions were written in a way to challenge the game designers not to be able to answer the question without thinking about the ramification of the answer. In other words, it had questions nestled within questions ("what happens if this happens? What about this then? If that, then what?" etc).

This meant that last year's adepticon FAQ was overly long in the question department and rather short in the answer department (IMHO), meaning that you could still misconstrue the ruling based on the short answer in some cases.

Somehow I got a hold of the adepticon FAQ crew and I offered them my new 'yak FAQ' that I had just completed, but since they had already put so much work into their existing document they decided to stick with what they had and just add on the questions in my Yak FAQ they didn't already have.

The result was a pretty comprehensive document, but the organization and consistency of the actual writing was kind of all over the place (as each of the questions was submitted by players rather than crafted by someone in order to clarify meaning).

Well, at Adepticon last year, I spoke with Jeff Chua and we talked about me converting my yak FAQ into a more tournament appropriate document. I spent the last year doing just that, with concrete news about the existence of 5th edition rolling in just a month or two ago (at least to me).


However, I am fully committed to reformatting the document where and when needed to cover 5th edition. Based on the PDF, about half the rules question in the main rulebook section will disappear, but there are some that look to not be covered (if the text stays the same). In addition, I'm sure there will be plenty of new rules issues to address as well. As for the codex sections, especially since GW doesn't seem to publish FAQs for their recent ones, I think those sections will largely remain, and I'm sure many of the 5th edition changes will produce rules issues that will also need to be clarified.

yakface wrote:


However, I am fully committed to reformatting the document where and when needed to cover 5th edition. Based on the PDF, about half the rules question in the main rulebook section will disappear, but there are some that look to not be covered (if the text stays the same). In addition, I'm sure there will be plenty of new rules issues to address as well. As for the codex sections, especially since GW doesn't seem to publish FAQs for their recent ones, I think those sections will largely remain, and I'm sure many of the 5th edition changes will produce rules issues that will also need to be clarified.

Reflecting, I didn't think my response all the way through. Given the current PDF/text, some of the issues have been resolved yet I can see where this FAQ will still help. Stressing "Given the current text" of course.

Actually, 5th Edition might actually be beneficial to your acceptance of the community (Even if it's burns alot of time you've spent on 4th).

If you release a very early FAQ on 5th...the more accepted/validated your FAQ will be. The problem you are more than likely experiencing with vets now is their acceptance on their group rulings (Probably by and large RAW). However, if you change minds early...well you won't need to change minds . So release a FAQ early for 5th!

Hell, given the current LOS and wound allocation wording...you might want to get started now

/Just noticed your location, what the hell happened last night!

Okay I have read through the entire FAQ last night and while I do not agree with all rulings I found it to be a good job overall addressing a multitude of frequently asked questions.

- G

I guess I should go to Indy tournaments more.

While I encounter huge amounts of cheating asshats at GW events, I encounter very little in the way of rules issues.

Usually 1 per 5 games, and usually my opponent unsure how a rule works wanting a judge to tell him how it works.

Is this not the case at Indy's? Is the environment so full of rules lawyers that a huge FAQ like this is required?

If it isn't, and tournaments aren't decided on rules issues but on: Cheating, Social Engineering, Bad Scoring Systems, Paid For Paint Jobs, and then List/Generalship....

Why do we need this FAQ, which addresses none of those issues?

How does this "improve" the tournament scene?

Yes yes, everyone can see how you've changed this or that but the problem is you haven't answered EVERY rules question out there--not by a long shot. So if the problems of rules do exist, since you haven't answered them all AND the ones you have "answered" are game changes...it looks like this FAQ does nothing but shift the emphasis from GW's rules being unclear in some cases, to yak's FAQ being unfair (as some say) or also unclear.

How is this a good thing? I don't know where people play, but I've never encountered 'FAQs' but at the Indy tournament scene--which is a major reason I have no interest in going. Call me a reasonable person able to work out rules problems amicably, which might be very rare and/or crazy, but I want to play 40K.

Flaws and all. I don't need someone who isn't with GW putting their stick in the pond and muddying the already murky water some more.

Maybe this helps you make sense of what I'm saying--less is more. A simple FAQ this is not. To me, that means it's already failed at it's task of simplifying the game.

If you aren't trying to simplify the game, and speed things up, then you are indeed trying to rewrite the rules as you see fit and that's best left to GW.

Even as bad as they are at it.

Let's get the points out there in a concise manner so we don't have to keep retreading the same ground.

People that don't like the idea of a big FAQ say:
Joe Newbie is not going to read it in advance, and will not be prepared for the changes it makes to the game.
While it answers many questions, it does not answer them all.
It's so big that the average player will not familiarize themselves with all of it.

People that don't like the idea of a FAQ that is viewed as the standard say:
I don't want it forced on me when I go to some other event that chooses to use it.

People that don't like the idea of a FAQ that changes the RAW say:
RAW is playable, going against it in any instance is meddling.
It's not possible to be unbiased, therefore biased changes work their way into Rules Change items.

People that don't like the idea of a FAQ:
The rules are fine and I don't have problems with them. A FAQ will only cause me problems then.
Changes will break the game.
Ruling X is against the way it should be.
If you're not GW, I can't hear you lalalalala.

Fair summary so far?

Fair indeed.

I don't know if I'd lalalalala to yak's face though.

Stelek wrote:
Call me a reasonable person able to work out rules problems amicably, which might be very rare and/or crazy, but I want to play 40K.

This from a man that scored an 18 in sportsmanship at the LVGT?


Again, you do no know how differently your local group plays than others until you play some games with others from across the country. When you play at an event like that, you might think that there is only one way to play 40k, and you will be surprised at how many rules that others play differently.

If you wait until you get to a tournament and then have a rules dispute and then find out what the judges rulings are on a lot of issues then you are going to be very unhappy.

For example: Do units in a transport count as a scoring unit? If you think you know the answer and play accordingly, you will be very upset when the judge tells you that you are wrong, and it cost you the game.

Just and observation ..

"Usually 1 per 5 games, and usually my opponent unsure how a rule works wanting a judge to tell him how it works. "

Taking your own average .. then at Adepticon in our 40K .. 100 table player environment .. you got 20 rules calls per round on various tables in the event. 4 round tourney that's 80 table calls x # events. I'm betting that is even on the low side because while it might be 1 table with issues .. they might need several calls or repeat visits. Some of those calls are pretty heated and game changing.

I'm not knocking anyone here..but the things that work in a 10-30 person RTT at a local game store don't translate well to an event of AdeptiCon size and scale. I've ran all sizes of events. They all have different challenges. But AdeptiCon has some unique challenges that until you are on the judges side are not all that apparent.

As for the size of the FAQ .. well the Direwolf FAQ is pretty well accepted ... it's considerably larger or has been at times, I'm guessing had similar kickback, but overall I think has been a good thing for the game of WFB.

Those IndyGT events on the GW Circuit for WFB .. guess what ... using the Direwolf FAQ. I don't see a problem with it. AdeptiCon is not a GW event. It's a gamer ran convention that is part of the GW circuit. The GW circuit is structured so that you can compete just by attending the "Offical" GW events. So I don't see an issue. TO's have the right to make up whatever rules they see fit. Some stranger than others .. Wild Bill's events come to mind... : )

BTW: Darth .. priceless .. It's the event judge secret frat faq! Written in invisable ink and only decodable by our signet rings.

It seems to me that opposition to the FAQ can be divided (very roughly) into two camps:
1) People who don't see a reason for any FAQ and/or oppose any non-GW attempt at a "standard" FAQ

2) People who disagree with this FAQ in particular, either based on how it was constructed or the nature of the rulings there-in.

In my opinion, both complaints can be rebutted.

Does Adepticon need an FAQ? As pointed out above, adepticon has hundreds of games going on, mulitple rounds, and three seperate tournaments. With mulitple judges over several days, there are bound to be rules disputes. While judges usually do a good job, having a standard template for many of the more common issues is a good thing, making sure that rules are consistent from table to table, round to round, and day to day. Imagine a scenario where you are playing a tight game, and a rules dispute arises. Assume that instead of the FAQ, adepticon has several top notch judges, experts in the rules. Let's assume also that the dispute you have is not something that is apparent from RAW. Any ruling that judge makes will be based, at least partially, not on rules, but on his discretion. Imagine instead that both players had access to the FAQ, which addressed the dispute in question. Rather than waiting breathlessly for an answer (that could go either way), a player can point to the judge how the FAQ agrees, get the ok from the judge, and the round continues.

In short, the FAQ eliminates uncertainty. No matter how certain you are that you play 40k properly, the judge can disagree. Armed with a FAQ, there is far less chance of a bad ruling in game!

So, feeling comfortable that Adepticon needs such an FAQ, should it become standard for the nation? That will depend mostly on it's success, and it's strength, as well as how future TOs view it. Some TOs will reject it, because they simply don't like it. Others will flock to it, seeing it as a way to have consistent rulings with perhaps less experienced judges (clubs that rotate judging will love it, I'm guessing). Admittedly, the internet is a repository of people with strong views of personal liberty and choice. Many people will oppose an attempt at national standards simply because they oppose national standards. That's fine, until you walk into a new store in a new state, or a new player walks into your store, and has a different view on how to play.

Given gamers, I doubt any non-GW FAQ will attain universl acceptance. I'd imagine the large tournaments will adopt it or something strikingly similar. Adding the lines "The adepticon FAQ with the following amendments will be used" is not hard to add to flier, neither is writing house rules into an adendum. At least be prepared to see it being used to argue a point.

The second big complaint is the nature of individual rulings. Many of them are labeled rules changes, and some of them actually are legitimate changes. This is simultaneously a more valid, but less pressing concern. It's more valid because if an FAQ is bad, poorly though our, or offensive to gamers, it will be of little valid. It's less pressing because this particular FAQ is both well reasoned and open to discussion and change. Concerns are heard, arguments are weighed, and the final document will reflect a compromise and consensus that might not make everybody 100% happy, but is as close as possible.

My final point is more of a question than an assertion. It may sound rhetorical, but it's not. it's this:

To what extent, if any, do those that oppose the FAQ think it will make the game less fun, less enjoyable, or less balance? Meaning if you played five games under these rulings, how do you think it would affect your game?

GEN.03 – Q: Can players mount multiple models
on the same base? If so, how is that base treated
in a game?
A: All models that have their own characteristics must be
mounted on a separate base [RAW]. In the rare case
where Games Workshop provides a single base for
multiple models each with their own characteristics (such
as IG heavy weapon teams or Ork Warboss w/Attack
Squig), they are treated as separate models mounted on
a single base. Any time a model is removed as a casualty
from the base, place a marker by the base to note this
fact [rules change]. Refer to the following guidelines
when dealing with separate models on a single base:

You should probably delete the example of an ork warboss with attack squig as that no longer applies. Wouldn't want to generate more confusion.

Good job.

Thanks budro. Someone else already pointed that out and it will be removed in the next update.

Blackmoor wrote:This from a man that scored an 18 in sportsmanship at the LVGT?

Will you knock off the whiney ass trolling already?

Blackmoor wrote:Again, you do no know how differently your local group plays than others until you play some games with others from across the country. When you play at an event like that, you might think that there is only one way to play 40k, and you will be surprised at how many rules that others play differently.

Saying I don't play games from across the country so I'm not allowed to comment....hmmm, until you play games internationally instead of just the US, you can't comment either.

How's that sound to ya?

Oh right, I *do* play games across the country. And internationally. So maybe I'm more qualified than you to rate how much trouble I've had with rules lawyers? (Near Zero.)

That's all I'm talking about. Can you leave the rest of your bs out of this conversation please? Thanks a ton.

Those IndyGT events on the GW Circuit for WFB .. guess what ... using the Direwolf FAQ. I don't see a problem with it. AdeptiCon is not a GW event. It's a gamer ran convention that is part of the GW circuit. The GW circuit is structured so that you can compete just by attending the "Offical" GW events. So I don't see an issue.

Many of the Direwolf's are the Geeks... guys that have been involved with GW Studio writers for eons so their FAQ is going to be more universally accepted because they already have the 'in' with the Studio. How many of Adepticon's FAQ team are 'in' with the Studio.

For example: the unassaultable unit due to the 1" rule. Try playing for the final position in a major event and having a judge rule that you can't charge a unit with a character. Why - because a friendly unit behind is in base to base and the bases are 25 mm, which is 0.04" smaller then 1". That's pure RAW and also pure stupidity.

I don't agree with the rule either (and a lot of others too!), but the rule is clear and you were beat by a dirty RAW trick. Did you think you could get away with it against your opponent? Did you believe that he wouldn't notice or wouldn't say anything? You should've softened up a unit first to enable you to charge without being within 1" of a unit that you weren't assaulting. Changing the rule for Adepticon is not the answer, it just helps your style of play.

Ultimately, I don't care... its a game of toy soldiers and most need to get their panties pulled out of their crotch and get on with it. Adepticon is cool and fun and the FAQ will help people get on with the game instead of wasting time discussing rules problems.

Stelek wrote:Saying I don't play games from across the country so I'm not allowed to comment....hmmm, until you play games internationally instead of just the US, you can't comment either.
How's that sound to ya?
Oh right, I *do* play games across the country. And internationally. So maybe I'm more qualified than you to rate how much trouble I've had with rules lawyers? (Near Zero.)
That's all I'm talking about. Can you leave the rest of your bs out of this conversation please? Thanks a ton.

Well - Blackmoor may not be able to comment from the international standpoint, but I sure can. I will say this from personal experience along with Mike Mutscheller that we each had major rules issues in our UK games that were exceptionally game changing. Enough so for me that the Spanish/American War almost started up again on the 2nd to top table in the 5th round of the UK GT Finals. We (the Toledo group as a whole) have also had similar rules issues at the US GTs, Gamesday events and AdeptiCon. None even close to being as heated as mine in the UK. However, any tournament vet will be able to attest that these problems exist. Just because you choose to ignore them is irrelevant.

Based on our extensive travel and tournament experience, this type of document is needed. Whether it is this document or another one, it would be ideal to have one FAQ that everyone plays by at the tournament events. As already posted, this document provides a solid, fundamental basis towards this ideal.

Polonius wrote:
To what extent, if any, do those that oppose the FAQ think it will make the game less fun, less enjoyable, or less balance? Meaning if you played five games under these rulings, how do you think it would affect your game?

Here's my primary answer: "Good men don't need laws. Bad men are unaffected by them."

Here's a few specific ones, I'll just take one every 5 pages or so:

RB.26.03 – Q: If a unit has “mixed armor” is the
wound allocated via the “torrent of fire” rule
resolved before allocating the rest of the wounds
on the unit? If so, can this casualty potentially
change which armor type is the majority?
A: A “torrent of fire” wound is fully resolved before
moving onto the mixed armor wound allocation. This
casualty can indeed alter the majority armor composition
of the unit [clarification].

Totally worthless meddling. Why do Black Templars get dicked over for no apparent reason? Hey I shot your 6 3+/5 4+ squad, hmmm put a wound on your 3+ save guy and if you fail; all my heavy bolter shots go into your 4+ guys and WIN for me! Oh yeah, all the bolter shots--those can go on your 3+ save guys.

RB.76E.02 – Q: When using the Mixed Armor rules,
if an Armor save set contains models with
differing Invulnerable saves (or has Invulnerable
Saves that are better than the unit’s cover save),
how are the wounds divided up within the single
Armor save type?
A: They must be further divided within the Armor save
type by using the standard Mixed Armor procedure, but
treat differing Invulnerable saves (or Invulnerable saves
that are better than the unit’s cover save) as different
save “types” for this allocation. The player may choose
which invulnerable save type to begin allocating wounds
to [rules change].

More meddling. My Dark Eldar Dracon with Warriors are in the OPEN. I get shot at long range with a lascannon. Well, I don't have a invulnerable save for the warriors but I *do* have a invulnerable save on my dracon. Gee, I'll take my 2+ save. Don't have heavy bolters, just have lascannons? Well good luck attritioning my unit away. The consequences of unintended action seems pretty clear to me.

RB.85.02A – Q: Are an Independent Character’s
accompanying Wargear models worth any Victory
Points for being destroyed?
A: Unless specified otherwise, no. Only the status of the
actual character model at the end of the game matters
for Victory Point purposes [rules change].

Gee really? Tau players with drones are getting a major boost. Obviously since it's written into the rules, GW didn't really mean it and somehow it's not "clear" enough for all of us poor Tau players.

MCO.01C – Q: Can a Psyker who is allowed to
shoot due to an Auspex/Surveyor, use his psychic
abilities instead?
A: Only if the psychic ability is normally used instead of
shooting and it directly targets a single enemy unit [rules
change]. The psyker may use his abilities against each
enemy unit he shoots at (even with the same ability), but
he must pass a separate psychic test (if applicable) each
time.

Wow so...single power psykers can potentially use their powers an unlimited number of times against as many units as they can see? Man sign me up for that program.

ACo.GEN.01 – Q: Can an Armored Company take
Deamonhunter, Witch Hunter or Kroot Mercenary
allies?
A: Armored Company units may never be allies in another
army [rules change]. Armored Companies may take
Daemonhunter or Witch Hunter allies, however only units
that have dedicated transports are allowed, meaning
Kroot Mercenary units may not be taken [rules change].

Well gee, this looks like someone just gimped an army list. Nah, that won't affect anyone.

BA.26C.04 – Q: Do Inquisitorial Mystics allow free
shots at units arriving by Drop Pod?
A: Yes. The shooting is resolved after the Drop Pod lands
and the passengers disembark. Either the Drop Pod or
the disembarked unit may be the targeted, but not both
[rules change].

Just pointing out the inequality of the FAQ here. Mystics get screwed, and can't kill drop pods along with their cargo (for whatever game breaking reason this is) but you can fire psykers like machine guns at infiltrating units? Yeah, ok.

CSM.54.03 – Q: Can Typhus use his Force weapon
ability on multiple models in the same assault
phase?
A: Yes, but note that the instant-kill ability is not tested
for until after all wounds inflicted by Typhus are allocated
to enemy models [RAW].

I mentioned this one earlier, but every time I see it it makes me gag. Typhus can kill 4 Carnifexes in a turn? Gee, GW didn't clearly restrict force weapon attacks or anything.
I'd be pissed if Typhus got into my army and killed all my characters because this ruling makes him powerful beyond the pale.

DH.21F.01 – Q: Can Daemonhunters be taken as
allies in an army that also has Witch Hunter allies?
A: Yes, Daemonhunter and Witch Hunter units may both
be taken as allies in the same army [GW DH FAQ
overrule].

Why? GW deemed this combination too powerful, something I fully agree with. Yet another army list changed.

ELD.24C.01 – Q: If an Eldar unit finishes its fall
back move within 12” of a friendly Avatar (or he
moves within 12” of a unit that is falling back)
does the unit immediately regroup?
A: Yes, the unit immediately regroups but does not make
a consolidation move [rules change].

Mentioned before. Here's the problem. I shoot Unit A. Unit A breaks. Under the current rules, if I kill the Avatar dead on my turn--on your turn, your unit is still broken. It's a free regroup Eldar don't currently get--why is this being added? Don't tell me because people are too stupid to keep track of what units are broken or not!

ELD.39.02 -- Q: Can either Heavy Weapon
crewman fire the weapon regardless of where
they are in the unit?
A: Yes, the position of the gun is immaterial. Either
crewman (but not both at the same time) may fire the
weapon [RAW]. However, both team members must
remain within 2” of each other during the game where
possible [rules change].

Again, mentioned before--this ruling reduces the Eldar list. Is this a counterbalance for the above? It's not what Phil Kelly intended, so why was it changed?

ELD.49A.01 -- Q: Can Veil of Tears ever be nullified
or cancelled?
A: No. See RB.52.07.

You can't say 'NO' in the same FAQ you said 'YES'. :(

Is that enough? There are lots of examples in the FAQ of army list after army list either getting a boost, a nerf, both (at the same time!) or being changed completely.

Why is this being done? Specifically the line above, WHY? Is 40K not confusing enough, you better check the Adepticon FAQ to make sure your army is the one GW gave you?

How stupid is that? (Rhetorical).

Fabricator General wrote:I don't agree with the rule either (and a lot of others too!), but the rule is clear and you were beat by a dirty RAW trick. Did you think you could get away with it against your opponent? Did you believe that he wouldn't notice or wouldn't say anything? You should've softened up a unit first to enable you to charge without being within 1" of a unit that you weren't assaulting. Changing the rule for Adepticon is not the answer, it just helps your style of play.

Ultimately, I don't care... its a game of toy soldiers and most need to get their panties pulled out of their crotch and get on with it. Adepticon is cool and fun and the FAQ will help people get on with the game instead of wasting time discussing rules problems.

Yes - you want to know why I thought I could get away with it? Because we agreed on it prior to the game. I asked all of my opponents that exact question prior to starting all of my games in the UK. We also asked how they were playing terrain and a number of other questions just to ensure that we were on the same page. When it came down to do or die, my opponent so gratiously changed his position and "I never agreed to that". In fact one of his friends came up to me and apologized afterwards since he was there when we were discussing the rules prior to deployment. So before you comment - you may want to be sure you have all the facts.

Inquisitor_Malice wrote:

Stelek wrote:Saying I don't play games from across the country so I'm not allowed to comment....hmmm, until you play games internationally instead of just the US, you can't comment either.
How's that sound to ya?
Oh right, I *do* play games across the country. And internationally. So maybe I'm more qualified than you to rate how much trouble I've had with rules lawyers? (Near Zero.)
That's all I'm talking about. Can you leave the rest of your bs out of this conversation please? Thanks a ton.

Well - Blackmoor may not be able to comment from the international standpoint, but I sure can. I will say this from personal experience along with Mike Mutscheller that we each had major rules issues in our UK games that were exceptionally game changing. Enough so for me that the Spanish/American War almost started up again on the 2nd to top table in the 5th round of the UK GT Finals. We (the Toledo group as a whole) have also had similar rules issues at the US GTs, Gamesday events and AdeptiCon. None even close to being as heated as mine in the UK. However, any tournament vet will be able to attest that these problems exist. Just because you choose to ignore them is irrelevant.

Based on our extensive travel and tournament experience, this type of document is needed. Whether it is this document or another one, it would be ideal to have one FAQ that everyone plays by at the tournament events. As already posted, this document provides a solid, fundamental basis towards this ideal.

Woah, who said anything about ignoring these problems?

Playing internationally is WAY different. Even in Australia it's way different than elsewhere. Canada has it's quirks. The UK plays by it's own screwy rules. So does Germany, Spain, and Italy. In the US, West plays differently than East in quite a few ways.

Do you really think you can put out a FAQ that will cover even 20% of the rules questions while leaving the other 80% unanswered--or worse yet, do you think this FAQ is worth the paper it's printed on outside of the US? I can assure you, it isn't. Even if that isn't the goal, you do realize if a European player comes to the US (or Vice Versa) they'll have total system shock because the BASIS of the FAQ, the rules; are completely different in the country of origin's eyes?

You cannot FAQ internationally without locals helping you do so. So the FAQ fails on that point.
You cannot FAQ for just the US because in the end, GW events here will refuse to use it. So the FAQ fails on that point.
You cannot FAQ and issue rules changes and army rewrites without pissing people off. So the FAQ fails on that point.
You cannot FAQ and leave out the answers to the nonsense people pull at the Indy's "because the rules say/don't say so". So the FAQ fails on that point.

I'm not trying to piss yak off. I know what it's like to make a huge amount of effort for GW and get the crapper in response.

I'm telling you as a reasonable player, this FAQ is crap. It doesn't answer the real gakky stuff people can pull, and in the end all it currently does is screw new players.

That is what GW has been doing at their events (alot of you know my opinion on this already) and now you're going to do it at the Indy's too?

I know I'd be pretty pissed if some yokel told me I couldn't do something because of some online FAQ that GW doesn't even endorse says. People get pissed at GW's FAQ's, but they HAVE to accept them. All it takes to create drama at the Indy's is one person winning a tournament because of the FAQ. Better to 4+ it than deal with that nonsense IMO.

Stelek, you gave a list of changes, and they certainly could change some games. The question I asked wasn't "are there things that the FAQ changes," but to what extent would it be unbalancing or unfun.

Am I to take it that you consider that list of changes to be so dramatic that the game is completely unbalanced?

muwhe wrote:Taking your own average .. then at Adepticon in our 40K .. 100 table player environment .. you got 20 rules calls per round on various tables in the event. 4 round tourney that's 80 table calls x # events. I'm betting that is even on the low side because while it might be 1 table with issues .. they might need several calls or repeat visits. Some of those calls are pretty heated and game changing.

I don't think it's as bad as that. Most of the time at properly run tournaments with enough staffing, you should have a judge available every 4-5 tables. If you can't manage that, having a FAQ isn't going to help because who the feth prints out the FAQ's and brings them, but for their own army?

That's all I'd ever expect a player to bring and understand. It does behoove them to know every army and it's rules, but that isn't actually required to play.

All I know is, with 20 staff on hand at the LVGT and some 200 tables going; I all of the judges walking around bored almost all the time.

They didn't have a FAQ, but that event was one of the best GW run events in well over 5 years for me.

What's that say about the need for a FAQ?

Nope. I consider them changes without GW making said changes, and that isn't the game people are coming to play.

With all it's flaws, it's still a game and it's only a bunch of really bored rules lawyers that seem intent on legislating 'bad' from 'good'.

Which has been proven time and again, cannot be done.

The asshats are still going to come play. Some of you guys, I'm sure, fit that role. I'm sure you see a 'flaw' in the FAQ you can use to your advantage, but aren't saying anything because you hope it goes unnoticed so your uber bang bang death army can romp it's way to victory through the loopholes Yak + Council haven't closed.

So the FAQ dicks over new players, and...does nothing for the asshats.

You can't legislate good into asshats. Ever. Period.

Stop trying! Only the good players suffer.

Stelek wrote:Woah, who said anything about ignoring these problems?

Playing internationally is WAY different. Even in Australia it's way different than elsewhere. Canada has it's quirks. The UK plays by it's own screwy rules. So does Germany, Spain, and Italy. In the US, West plays differently than East in quite a few ways.

Do you really think you can put out a FAQ that will cover even 20% of the rules questions while leaving the other 80% unanswered--or worse yet, do you think this FAQ is worth the paper it's printed on outside of the US? I can assure you, it isn't. Even if that isn't the goal, you do realize if a European player comes to the US (or Vice Versa) they'll have total system shock because the BASIS of the FAQ, the rules; are completely different in the country of origin's eyes?

You cannot FAQ internationally without locals helping you do so. So the FAQ fails on that point.
You cannot FAQ for just the US because in the end, GW events here will refuse to use it. So the FAQ fails on that point.
You cannot FAQ and issue rules changes and army rewrites without pissing people off. So the FAQ fails on that point.
You cannot FAQ and leave out the answers to the nonsense people pull at the Indy's "because the rules say/don't say so". So the FAQ fails on that point.

I'm not trying to piss yak off. I know what it's like to make a huge amount of effort for GW and get the crapper in response.

I'm telling you as a reasonable player, this FAQ is crap. It doesn't answer the real gakky stuff people can pull, and in the end all it currently does is screw new players.

That is what GW has been doing at their events (alot of you know my opinion on this already) and now you're going to do it at the Indy's too?

I know I'd be pretty pissed if some yokel told me I couldn't do something because of some online FAQ that GW doesn't even endorse says. People get pissed at GW's FAQ's, but they HAVE to accept them. All it takes to create drama at the Indy's is one person winning a tournament because of the FAQ. Better to 4+ it than deal with that nonsense IMO.

I agree with you that an overall international FAQ is not feasible at this point in time. That said though - having the FAQs posted ahead of time by the different international groups is better than not having them. This is potentially a step towards a US standard.
The FAQ doesn't fail because people are initially pissed. The FAQ would fail if in time it is not widely accepted. - people hate change, but yet change can be good.
The FAQ doesn't fail because GW doesn't use it (ie: direwolf FAQ). - no other point is needed here. As AdeptiCon has proven - if you do something right, you can have an influence on GW.
The FAQ minimizes the overall nonsense that people can pull. Therefore it succeeds.

It's the same thing. We (since I speak for my group) are telling you as reaonable players that this FAQ is a solid document. It is a living document that can address issues as they arise or a concensus is established.

I know I would be pretty pissed on some standard rule that 99% of the people play with and some Yokel told me that we had to 4+ it. Better to have one document that can easily be referenced than 4+ the same issue over and over and over and over and over again and again and again. Where is the logic in that?

I (and my group) as reasonable players disagree with you.

And pretty much everything you've said.

I don't know what LVGT you attended but since I worked that event ..

They didn't have a FAQ, but that event was one of the best GW run events in well over 5 years for me.

What's that say about the need for a FAQ

I say it says a lot about Dave Taylor influence on the event circuit and the commitment from his staff and leadership.

Dave has been coming to AdeptiCon for several years now and has a good understanding of what a good event is all about.

But we also had a full rulebook library, and surpise faqs, and access to Phil Kelly with the recent release of the Eldar Codex.
As well as a good bit of debate on common issues..etc

Jeff Chua and I appreciated the chance to fly out and help with that one!

All I know is, with 20 staff on hand at the LVGT and some 200 tables going; I all of the judges walking around bored almost all the time.

I can tell you this was not the case:

Might have had 20 staff total. At most you had 3 Rules judges on the floor for each section or 6 rule judges. The rest handle data entry, running the clock, taking pictures and other duties... and looking good. You might have seen a bunch over in the area .. but they are just checking out the games. Heaven help me when I would try to walk over and check out the WFB action .. as I got asked WFB rules questions. Amazingly .. I got a couple right.

Additionally those top 10 tables for the last 2 rounds attracted a ton of judge attention all day long.

and speaking of the clock .. single best thing ever for a large event. Cuts out that "how much time left" question that judges hear 100 times a round.. Hmm . some good looking guy must have come up with that!

Additionally if you have to many judges on the floor you end up with several getting together to make group calls which turns into longer discussion and game delays. Call a judge, get a call, and move on. Last thing you want is a debate between judging staff in the middle of an event. If a Judge has an issue with the call you find the Head Judge and get his call. That's it.

muwhe wrote:Hmm . some good looking guy must have come up with that!

And for a minute there - I thought you were talking about me.

You gotta stop posting your ridiculous grocery lists of rulings you don't like when you're hardly taking the time to understand the issue or the ruling.

Stelek wrote:
A: A “torrent of fire” wound is fully resolved before
moving onto the mixed armor wound allocation. This
casualty can indeed alter the majority armor composition
of the unit [clarification].

Totally worthless meddling. Why do Black Templars get dicked over for no apparent reason? Hey I shot your 6 3+/5 4+ squad, hmmm put a wound on your 3+ save guy and if you fail; all my heavy bolter shots go into your 4+ guys and WIN for me! Oh yeah, all the bolter shots--those can go on your 3+ save guys.

How would you rather it be handled? What do the rules say?
There is not a clear step by step order of operation that includes the torrent of fire casualty removal and the mixed armor rules. Combining those is open to interpretation, and I can guarantee that either way it goes, you would call it 'meddling'.

Stelek wrote:
A: They must be further divided within the Armor save
type by using the standard Mixed Armor procedure, but
treat differing Invulnerable saves (or Invulnerable saves
that are better than the unit’s cover save) as different
save “types” for this allocation. The player may choose
which invulnerable save type to begin allocating wounds
to [rules change].

More meddling. My Dark Eldar Dracon with Warriors are in the OPEN. I get shot at long range with a lascannon. Well, I don't have a invulnerable save for the warriors but I *do* have a invulnerable save on my dracon. Gee, I'll take my 2+ save. Don't have heavy bolters, just have lascannons? Well good luck attritioning my unit away. The consequences of unintended action seems pretty clear to me.

Incorrect reading as far as I can tell. The invulnerable 2+ is in the minority with the armor 5+ saves. Wounds would goto the 5+ armor first. Again, this was included because the mixed armor rules do not reference invulnerable saves at all. How would you expect it to be handled? Meddling?

Stelek wrote:
RB.85.02A – Q: Are an Independent Character’s
accompanying Wargear models worth any Victory
Points for being destroyed?
A: Unless specified otherwise, no. Only the status of the
actual character model at the end of the game matters
for Victory Point purposes [rules change].

Gee really? Tau players with drones are getting a major boost. Obviously since it's written into the rules, GW didn't really mean it and somehow it's not "clear" enough for all of us poor Tau players.

Tau drone rules specifically state otherwise.

Stelek wrote:
A: Only if the psychic ability is normally used instead of
shooting and it directly targets a single enemy unit [rules
change]. The psyker may use his abilities against each
enemy unit he shoots at (even with the same ability), but
he must pass a separate psychic test (if applicable) each
time.

Wow so...single power psykers can potentially use their powers an unlimited number of times against as many units as they can see? Man sign me up for that program.

As per this interpretation, if there are unlimited enemy units within range of the auspex, sure. Since that's impossible, your alarmism is over the top.
You seem to have a very clear notion in your mind about how 'free shots' from auspex and mystics should operate. So what should it be, a free shooting phase if it is triggered? Can psychic powers not be used at all? Shoot once per unit? I don't know really, the rules don't seem to cover it. If only we had an FAQ or something...

Stelek wrote:
A: Yes, but note that the instant-kill ability is not tested
for until after all wounds inflicted by Typhus are allocated
to enemy models [RAW].

I mentioned this one earlier, but every time I see it it makes me gag. Typhus can kill 4 Carnifexes in a turn? Gee, GW didn't clearly restrict force weapon attacks or anything.
I'd be pissed if Typhus got into my army and killed all my characters because this ruling makes him powerful beyond the pale.

How is typhus going to assign his attacks to different units in order to kill 4 carnifexes a turn? I don't see anything about it in the INATFAQ, but most people rule that the 'a' when assigning attacks to based units in a multiple combat is a singular 'a'.

Stelek wrote:
A: Yes, Daemonhunter and Witch Hunter units may both
be taken as allies in the same army [GW DH FAQ
overrule].

Why? GW deemed this combination too powerful, something I fully agree with. Yet another army list changed.

Because it's the way the vast majority of players interpreted that ruling. Does giving more options for an army list somehow make the game worse?

Stelek wrote:
A: Yes, the unit immediately regroups but does not make
a consolidation move [rules change].

Mentioned before. Here's the problem. I shoot Unit A. Unit A breaks. Under the current rules, if I kill the Avatar dead on my turn--on your turn, your unit is still broken. It's a free regroup Eldar don't currently get--why is this being added? Don't tell me because people are too stupid to keep track of what units are broken or not!

Lesson on morale vs. leadership vs. fall back.

Fearlessness gives you two things:
Never fall back
Auto pass morale

Regrouping is only something that occurs when a unit passes a Leadership (not morale) check while falling back. Regrouping includes a 3" consolidate.

A falling back unit that becomes fearless can no longer fall back, however they have not yet taken a leadership test for regrouping. Auto-pass morale checks doesn't work for the regroup check. So what happens? Well by RAW the adepticon FAQ looks to be in good shape to me. You can debate that if you want, but your initial understanding of the situation seems flawed.

Stelek wrote:
ELD.49A.01 -- Q: Can Veil of Tears ever be nullified
or cancelled?
A: No. See RB.52.07.

You can't say 'NO' in the same FAQ you said 'YES'. :(

It is never allowed to be nullified as in, cancelled entirely. Some units with the ability to ignore psychic powers are allowed in this FAQ to ignore veil of tears. If it were allowed to be nullified, you could make an argument that a SoB squad checking against the Veil would take their 5+ shield of faith. If the 5+ passed, it would 'turn off' / nullify the veil of tears. For how long? Are there rules for this? What should we do? Gosh if only we had an FAQ that covered this kind of thing...


I'm sure you'll disagree with me vehemently on each of these points. Which, in a silly way is really good press for the FAQ itself. Because if you and I can't agree on this many gray areas in the rulebook, a relatively comprehensive FAQ document for an event we could both be participating in sounds like a good idea.

So before you comment - you may want to be sure you have all the facts.

mmmm..... are you serious? Are you really serious? I'm supposed to read your mind and get all the facts that way? I'm only have what you said as a reference. If you want to share all you have, then I'll duly regard your comment.

Hopefully you didn't give that guy a good sports score either for being such a liar.