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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contact Us
By Phone

Games Workshop: 1-800-394-4263

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

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

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

custserv@games-workshop.com

See. I'm being helpful too.

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

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

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

My problems with it are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

And you still haven't answered the question -

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

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

Multiple times in fact...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly my point.

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am sure there are more.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I sincerely apologize for everything I wrote in the thread.

/drinks kool aid

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why would there be an arguement?

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

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

Shotgun wrote:Why would there be an arguement?

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

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

I obviously meant before the FAQ came out.

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

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

And are they a problem afterwards?

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

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

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

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

The Dreadnote wrote:And are they a problem afterwards?

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



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

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

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



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

Timmah wrote:

Shotgun wrote:Why would there be an arguement?

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

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

I obviously meant before the FAQ came out.

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is mind numbing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And I think your concern has been noted.

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

That is mind numbing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Polonius wrote:

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

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


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

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

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

As far as the balance statement...

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

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

Timmah wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As far as the balance statement...

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

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