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.

This thread is for people who think the Adepticon FAQ is a bad thing and want to stop it.

Clarification - Against the Adepticon FAQ for Adepticon, or against said FAQ for general usage?

Some people are against all FAQs.

I mean against the general use of the Adepticon FAQ outside Adepticon.

If the FAQ is being reviled... then the great unspeakable evil cannot be far from rising!

At first, I thought this was a post about why the Pan Fo weren't in the FAQ. The I realized that it wasn't posted by Kyoto or any other Wastelanders.

The Pan Fo shall be reviled! All your secrets are belong to us!

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

Perhaps those who revile it can explain why it is the source of all evil in the gaming universe?

Because all our secrets are belong to them - DUH!

For the record, I could care less what other people choose to do with FAQs or no FAQs. I don't want GW to "bless" some random 3rd party FAQ as the answer to everything.

"random 3rd party"

Nice.

If GW published something half this good and this comprehensive we'd both be singing their praises.

Sorry if that came out harshly.

The Adepticon FAQ is very good for what it does.

The thing is, GW could just as easily choose to bless whatever FAQ is current in Germany or Japan.

After all, they codified the d6 droppings of the Drools boyz in their previous FAQs.

So I'd rather GW err on the side of caution before forcing the world to play with one specific set of rulings.

What's wrong with the Adepticon FAQ?

Besides the fact that it exists at all, which could potentially introduce another layer of complexity for new players.

Poor new players with their fully painted (probably multiple) $500-1000 armies traveling across the freaking country/world to goto the most competitive 3 day event the hobby has to offer. I shed tears and light candles for the little guys. They probably don't know which way is up at this point, and even though they could look it up in the FAQ ('this way is up [rules change]') they shouldn't be required to know what's going on.

I just want to know on what page of the FAQ the truth shall be reviled?!?

Moz wrote:Poor new players with their fully painted (probably multiple) $500-1000 armies traveling across the freaking country/world to goto the most competitive 3 day event the hobby has to offer. I shed tears and light candles for the little guys. They probably don't know which way is up at this point, and even though they could look it up in the FAQ ('this way is up [rules change]') they shouldn't be required to know what's going on.

daaaamn I wanna go. Thank god they have an awesome FAQ so that after making an investment in time and money like that, I know that my games are going to go smoothly.

jfrazell wrote:

i laff.

Honestly I wouldn't use it for my own games, I'm big on d6ing stuff, altho I will use it ahead of time to make sure I have a good argument about how things work eg obscure psychic powers.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Sorry if that came out harshly.

The Adepticon FAQ is very good for what it does.

The thing is, GW could just as easily choose to bless whatever FAQ is current in Germany or Japan.

After all, they codified the d6 droppings of the Drools boyz in their previous FAQs.

So I'd rather GW err on the side of caution before forcing the world to play with one specific set of rulings.

So are you objecting to an FAQ at all Hwangmaster DD, or the specific notation of Adepticon? Let me clarify (or make even more opaque). Are you against all FAQ's or this one specifically? If other tourneys began unilaterally using the Adepticon FAQ would it be an issue for you?

As an example. We have a tournament here called Owlcon. If they used the identical FAQ would you have issue with that?

While there are issues that everyone may not agree on in the FAQ, atleast it is an attempt to bring everyone to the same place, an understanding about rules which otherwise would be argued over ad infinitum.

Without such, conventions such as adepticon wouldn't go anywhere nearly as smoothly.

as for using it outside of adepticon, why not?

Its not like GW has put one tenth of their effort in writing the rules as people have in making this faq. They cannot even be relied upon to write a FAQ themselves and will probably take credit for writing it once they get their stupid fingers on it (remember, everything submitted to GW becomes property of GW) and call it their own.

So either way, this FAQ is very much like prepainted miniatures.

You may not like the paint job, but it still better than playing against Silver Armies of Suck.

jfrazell - until you can address me properly, I will not be responding to you.

Edit deleted by moi for being unnecessarily hostile.

jfrazell wrote:Edit deleted by moi for being unnecessarily hostile.

Moi - you have to be kidding on this edit. All I saw was "I think I'll live". And the statement of "random 3rd party" isn't hostile/degrading towards the developers of the FAQ? If someone wants to pout, then so be it - they get a pouting response.

Sorry IM, er what? Please clarify.

JohnHwangDD wrote:jfrazell - until you can address me properly, I will not be responding to you.

I think Jfrazell was going for the whole brevity thing.

Is "Grand Hwangmaster DD, triple ripple platinum gansta rapper supreme" the full title?

jfrazell wrote:Sorry IM, er what? Please clarify.

Moi edited your previous response and I didn't think it was necessary.

"JH", "JHDD", and/or "John" are all brief and polite. Any would be welcome over his/her cleverness with my name.

While the long for title is pretty cool, with a name like that, I think I'd have to be pimped out more:

http://www.40konline.com/mos/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=861&topic=156021.0

To sum up, FAQ makes too many arbitrary rules changes, is bad.

Yes, too many arbitrary rules changes would be bad, but I don't think very many if any of the changes were arbitrary. Yakface and the rest didn't just put words and rules on the wall and throw darts. I'm happy to have a document at all that may streamline Adepticon, even if I don't agree with everything. At least the players will have access to the same rules and faq.

Gotta love all the people who think that the sky is falling because we at AdeptiCon release a FAQ, and then offer it to the rest of the 40K Community to use. I managed to start a whole crapstorm on 40K Fight Club because I simply asked if it was going to be used in an upcoming tournament that is being held.

Anyways, the really funny part is that the INAT FAQ becomes totally useless after this summer, once 5th Ed. is released. So I really, really, really, can't see how this is such a huge issue.

You want to know something...the community's been begging GW for some decent FAQs for years. And what's GW's response been?

<silence>

How about an analogy.

People have been complaining about GT's for years. Gradually degrading quality of contenders (I remember when nearly every army at a GT was beautifully painted and converted), gradually shrinking number of attendees, somewhat sloppy rules judging, and particularly the worthlessness of the prizes and awards in relation to the price of admission ("Ooh, I spent $150 on my ticket, was the best army out of a field of 140 competitors...and I get this nice printed certificate.)

People have been complaining for years...but this year, Dave Taylor put together what's been, IMNSHO, some of the best GT's ever. The whole tournament circuit excitement aside, this year's GT's had some great looking armies, larger than usual participation, and the prize support was phenomenal. Why do you think they did that, this year, of all years?

Mannahnin wrote:If GW published something half this good and this comprehensive we'd both be singing their praises.

I wouldn't.

One thing I hated about GW's FAQs was that they constantly changed rules rather than clarifying them, the classic example bwing the SW Acute Senses vs GK Shrouding answer. I hate FAQs that change rules rather than making them clear. Rules should be changed only when absolutley necessary (ie. the rule doesn't say what you intended it to say or says something in such a poor way that an opposite or different meaning is given).

BYE

Inquisitor_Malice wrote:

jfrazell wrote:Sorry IM, er what? Please clarify.

Moi edited your previous response and I didn't think it was necessary.

Thanks IM-that was self edited by me. Its my new Lenten policy to be more nurturing of my fellow gamer and fellow man

jfrazell wrote:Thanks IM-that was self edited by me. Its my new Lenten policy to be more nurturing of my fellow gamer and fellow man

Slap - Moi - French for Me. Duhhhhhh!!!! - Excuse me while I slap myself again.