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.

So the INAT FAQ has been released, to much acclaim and some controversy. It is intended to solve one of the biggest problem for 40K tournament players: GW's sloppy rules-writing. Will its use extend beyond Adepticon? Only time will tell.

We are all, I'm sure, aware of another problem with GW: "The Squat Effect." Sometimes they cease supporting army lists after a while. They've explained their reasons, and I understand and even agree with them. They just don't have the resources to fully playtest the backlog of old army lists against each new army list that they create.

Let me go slightly off-topic here and cue some of you into something that you may not be aware of. There exists a sprawling international network of fans who engage in parallel rules development. Their work is recognized by gamers all around the world. They work with the approval of many of the top designers in Nottingham (including Jervis). They maintain not only a large number of army lists, but an entire system. They are the [url=http://www.netepic.org/[/url] team. A very short version of the story goes: When the oft-maligned Epic 40,000 (Epic 3rd ed) was released, many gamers revolted. The NetEpic team was formed to continue support for Space Marine / Titan Legions (Epic 2nd ed) after GW withdrew. GW is well-aware of them, and likes them just fine. NetEpic doesn't copy fluff text from GW publications (they write their own) bu they do use various tradmarks ("Space Marines", "Tau," "lascannon," etc.) and rules. Rules, BTW, cannot be copyrighted; text containing rules can. Recently, memebers of the NetEpic team, along with other fans, have started working on parallel Epic Armageddon development, as the GW-sanctioned rules update process has stalled. Anyway, that's just some background about a somewhat similar project to what I am about to propose.

Obviously such drastic measures are not needed in 40K's case. There is not large-scale revolt against the 4th edition rules. (Fun fact: I stopped buying GW products for a decade over the Epic40K/Squats fiasco!) Still, a lot of fans aren't happy with the current level of tournament supported rules and army lists. The rules have been more-or-less handled. What about army lists?

I propose that a team be assembled to make well-tested army lists for defunct armies, and that they lists be approved by INAT for use at Adepticon. Start with the most obvious one: Lost and the Damned. It was just killed a few months ago, and it was a great list, fully compatible with 4th edition. I shouldn't take long at all to rewrite it to comply with copyright laws and work a few bugs out of it. Next: squats and genestealer cults. These will require more work, as they haven't appeared in any official sense since 2nd edition. Then, perhaps Chaos Legions?

Adepticon has a lot of clout in the 40K world. We will get a taste of just how much clout they have when we see at what rate the INAT FAQ is adopted by other tournaments. Taking it to the next level, army lists, has the potential to make 40K a better game for the players, without making GW's development team sweat too much.

I'm all for it.

This is a great idea, and I think LatD is the perfect vehicle to try it out on, since it existed in 4th edition. Here are some questions to mull over before launching too deep:

Is this is a way to allow currently built LatD armies to be played, or is it also to encourage new LatD armies to be built? Meaning, is the focus on backwards compatibility or on writing a cool new list?

Will the focus be on rehabbing the Eye of Terror list as lightly as possible, or will it be a from scratch re-write? Surpisingly little of the EoT list needs a full re-write.

Will any attempt to "balance" some of the options in the EoT list be made, or will the goal be to encapsulate what was playable before?

As for updating the EoT list, it's pretty simple. First, there are two EoT units that are still fine: Big Muties and Chaos Hounds. The spawn in the codex are better, I would say, then the CSM one, but the CSM one is a FA choice, not heavy. Maybe simply change the name of the unit to "Chaos Monstrosities" or something. Two more units, Traitors and Mutants, lose the access to the armory for their 15 poitns of weapons and wargear. How about simply allowing PP, PW, and PF to each of them and call it a day? The Aspiring Champions Also have armory access, but I'm assuming giving them a points drop and the regular Lord options (minus the Daemon Weapon) would suffice...

Traitor Recon and Traitor Tanks are no problems, codex IG is still rocking. That leaves the units available from Codex: Chaos Space Marines: Arch Heretic (lieutenant/Sorceror), Greater Daemon, Possessed, Daemon Packs, Nurglings, DAemon Beasts, Defiler.

Greater Daemon and Daemon Packs can pretty much stay as is, IMO, perhaps keeping the current rules of not using FOC slots. That would allow 0-1 Chaos Sorceror to be taken, and then Aspiring champs. You could add an option to take a lord if you wanted, I just don't see it being necessary. The Daemon Beasts can be replaced by the current Spawn in Fast Attack. The defiler stays in heavy.

Make a few changes to Icons in the list so that daemons can be summoned, and drop the cost of rhinos and chimeras for traitors that become fast options, and youv'e got a playable list!

Polonius wrote:This is a great idea, and I think LatD is the perfect vehicle to try it out on, since it existed in 4th edition. Here are some questions to mull over before launching too deep:

Is this is a way to allow currently built LatD armies to be played, or is it also to encourage new LatD armies to be built? Meaning, is the focus on backwards compatibility or on writing a cool new list?

That's an excellent question, and one that deserves a lot of thought. It seems to me that it would be prudent to start with backward-compatibility in order to encourage players worldwide to accept the lists, and then gradually spice things up over the years. List would need to be revised every 2-4 years, I guess, to keep them in line with design trends from the studio.

Will the focus be on rehabbing the Eye of Terror list as lightly as possible, or will it be a from scratch re-write? Surpisingly little of the EoT list needs a full re-write.

Well, it would need to be completely rewritten for copyright reasons. I'm not an expert on the LatD list, but my impression is that it was pretty well-balanced.

Will any attempt to "balance" some of the options in the EoT list be made, or will the goal be to encapsulate what was playable before?

The list should be balanced, but not bland. If the fan-team can do better job than GW did, then let them.

So, in summary, make only minor changes at first to ensure that the list will be acceptable to old players, but continue to develop it as time goes on, introducing new units and changing this up.

Now this is something I could get behind.

Actual usefulness for the hobby ftw.

If there's anything I could do to push this forward, PM me.

Obviously this can't happen for this year's Adepticon, but there's no reason it couldn't happen next year.

That said, you would actually have to contact the Adepticon organizers and see if they're interested.

My guess is that it is something they probably wouldn't be interested in, but you never know.

Backwards compatability would be best, of course, and NOT hard to do.

The Aspiring Champions would need to be one of 5 types...

Thousand Sons
Emperor's Children
Berzerkers
Deathguard

(Taking one of the "Legion" Champs, as opposed to a generic champ & upgrading him with an Icon stays closer to the intent of the original list.)

Whichever champion is chosen gives the unit he's atached to the ability to purchase an Icon of (insert his God here) from the Codex listed points. It must be carried by a member of the unit and not the Champion. Only the unit gets the bonus from this Icon. It does not stack with the "built in" bonuses the Champ comes with.

The exception is Chaos Undivided. Either the Champ OR the unit may carry the Icon and both get the bonuses for it, regardless of who carries it.
Yes, that gives a potential slight advantage to undivided in THAT case... it's okay. It won't overpower them.

Champs may take upgrades as per ther codex.

Old Spawn should be dumped for new Spawn, even if leaving them in the same FO slot (which I'm uncertain on).



Those are just my thoughts for now, without my codex handy.


Eric

I think the largest impediment to making this a reality is that army building is generally a lengthy and expensive process.

I really don't think too many players would be interested in building *new* armies based on an army list that was only valid in a few tournaments.

So while this would definitely ease the pain for those veterans whose armies have been left out in the cold by GW that is a relatively small number of people that is bound to get smaller and smaller as time passes and memories of those old lists drift off into the ether.

yakface wrote:
I think the largest impediment to making this a reality is that army building is generally a lengthy and expensive process.

I really don't think too many players would be interested in building *new* armies based on an army list that was only valid in a few tournaments.

So while this would definitely ease the pain for those veterans whose armies have been left out in the cold by GW that is a relatively small number of people that is bound to get smaller and smaller as time passes and memories of those old lists drift off into the ether.

That is certainly a possible outcome. Heck, it's the most probable outcome.

However, it's possible that something like this could become sufficiently legitimized that the lists will become widely accepted (particularly in the US, where GW stores are few and far between compared with independent stores and tournaments). Lots of people collect Epic armies for which there are only fan-supported army lists.

I don't think that it's time to move on this project yet. If the INAT FAQ becomes widely-accepted at non-Adepticon tournaments, INAT will have effectively established itself as a legitimate source of 40K rules. By adopting the INAT FAQ, tournament organizers and players will have made an implicit statement that they trust INAT to create clear and fair rules. Once that trust is established, it seems reasonable to me that they would trust INAT to create clear and fair army lists.

I myself have decided to adopt the INAT FAQ wholesale when creating my armies (even when I don't agree with it) and will push to use it when co-organizing tournaments. If others follow my example, it could help to establish a parallel development process which circumvents GW's ossified corporate structure while harnessing the organizing powers and creative collaboration that the internet makes possible.

Well, regardless I'd say step one would be creating a completely updated version of the army list and I think working in Dakka's article wiki system would be a great place to do it as multiple people could contribute to it at the same time.

So why not make the updated army list and then move onto the next step?

I agree, I think it's better to make the list first and shop it around than worrying about acceptance from, say, adepticon before anything happens. It would still be useful to people who just want to play (and play against) LatD, even if it doesn't gain tournament acceptance. Plus, you need to have something to show - perhaps it would be more likely to gain acceptance if a lot of people start using it ahead of time.

That'll teach me to open my mouth. First draft: in progress. I should have something up within the week.

Just to throw out my own .02 on this, I would NEVER participate in a tournament that allows its own homebrew army lists. I can understand the need for a FAQ to answer/clarify rules questions/issues, but to enter a tournament, then finding myself against someone that doesn't have a GW legal army? Pfft, no thanks.

While you're at it, whynot go through all the current army lists and fix the issues in them? While you're adding LatD, please nerf unkillable falcons and nidzilla. If it's not going to be a legal GW tournament, just go all the way.

yakface wrote:
Obviously this can't happen for this year's Adepticon, but there's no reason it couldn't happen next year.

That said, you would actually have to contact the Adepticon organizers and see if they're interested.

My guess is that it is something they probably wouldn't be interested in, but you never know.

Most of the Adepticon council members are far to busy (with running Adepticon) to try and promote a system of user created army lists. If you wanted to run a "land of lost lists" tournament - that's something that might be achievable. Squats vs. Zoates anyone?

Lormax wrote:Just to throw out my own .02 on this, I would NEVER participate in a tournament that allows its own homebrew army lists. I can understand the need for a FAQ to answer/clarify rules questions/issues, but to enter a tournament, then finding myself against someone that doesn't have a GW legal army? Pfft, no thanks.

Why not? Are you afraid that the lists would be unbalanced or something?

While you're at it, whynot go through all the current army lists and fix the issues in them? While you're adding LatD, please nerf unkillable falcons and nidzilla. If it's not going to be a legal GW tournament, just go all the way.

No wait, that can't be it, because you say that GW's official lists are unbalanced.

So, what exactly is the issue?

Because, despite the balance issues with some GW codexes, people are at least aware of what to expect out of nidzilla, falconx3, etc, etc. list.

If I show up a tourney that is throwing an unfamiliar list at me, that gives a certain advantage to the player of the unfamiliar list, over and above any balance issues inherent in the unknown list.

Maybe it's time to create a sort of "High Lords of Terra" council that works on projects like these. Who all collaborated on the INAT document? A council of players and veterans from all over the U.S., drawn from online forum creators and contributors, large tournament organizers, top players, etc.

With the weight of the 40K community behind it, rules and lists could be given the official council seal of approval. Documents, updates and faqs could be posted on an official "High lords of Terra" website or disseminated through existing websites and forums.

Events and venues could then allow some, all or none of these at their tournaments.

I could get behind that idea. In fact I think it would be terrific!

Valhallan42nd wrote:Because, despite the balance issues with some GW codexes, people are at least aware of what to expect out of nidzilla, falconx3, etc, etc. list.

If I show up a tourney that is throwing an unfamiliar list at me, that gives a certain advantage to the player of the unfamiliar list, over and above any balance issues inherent in the unknown list.

By that logic, Tournies should be banning any new codex that players haven't all had a chance to play against yet...


Surely 'home-brew' lists allowed in the tournament would be available for download prior to the event...

Anything 'homebrew' like that is going to cater to a small niche, with that niche usually being local to that tournament or its organizers. We can all already hear the cries of foul if/when that homebrew list sweeps the tournament.

When I play in a 40k tourney, I want to play in a '40k tourney'. It's an environment that I know what to expect because I know whats going on in the 40k world, according to the game manufacturer. Some of the lists may be broken, unbalanced, cheesy or on the flipside so mediocre that they have a hard time competing in a tournament setting. But, I know that. I know what I've got to deal with and what I have on my plate.

I'm not saying to not enjoy your homebrew lists. I just don't think they belong in any sort of tournament setting.

Lormax wrote:When I play in a 40k tourney, I want to play in a '40k tourney'. It's an environment that I know what to expect because I know whats going on in the 40k world, according to the game manufacturer. Some of the lists may be broken, unbalanced, cheesy or on the flipside so mediocre that they have a hard time competing in a tournament setting. But, I know that. I know what I've got to deal with and what I have on my plate.

This is again making it sound like the 'home-brew' lists would be some sort of secret document that nobody would know about except the people using them...

Downloadable home-brew codexes surely aren't going to be any more difficult to read than a codex printed by GW. So why wouldn't you be able to read them before the event, and then likewise know what you have to deal with?

If you're participating in tournaments, then any rules used by those tournaments are as much a part of the '40K world' as the house rules used when playing amongst your mates at home. The game includes whatever we want it to include.

Lormax wrote:Anything 'homebrew' like that is going to cater to a small niche, with that niche usually being local to that tournament or its organizers.

I guess I have two responses to this:

I don't see my proposed lists (especially not the Lost and the Damned list) as catering to a small niche. Lots of people collected these armies.

My hope is that these lists will not be confined to a couple of local tournaments, but will be adopted by Adepticon (a large, national tournament) and by many if not most other tournaments.

We can all already hear the cries of foul if/when that homebrew list sweeps the tournament.

I don't anticipate this happening. We've all heard stories about how shoddy GW's playtesting is. I'm confidant that we, as a community, can do better.

When I play in a 40k tourney, I want to play in a '40k tourney'. It's an environment that I know what to expect because I know whats going on in the 40k world, according to the game manufacturer. Some of the lists may be broken, unbalanced, cheesy or on the flipside so mediocre that they have a hard time competing in a tournament setting. But, I know that. I know what I've got to deal with and what I have on my plate.

What is your opinion about the INAT FAQ, if you don't mind me asking?

And, as Insaniak points out above, the lists will be available for download. They will simply be updated versions of army lists that were tournament-legal in the past; they will be fundamentally similar, though updated to work properly with the latest rulebook and design philosophies. My hope is that they will become sufficiently popular that they will be familiar to all experienced 40K players, but maybe that's foolish optimism on my part.

I'm not saying to not enjoy your homebrew lists. I just don't think they belong in any sort of tournament setting.

I think that each tournament organizer has to decide for himself what the ground rules are. I've seen a lot of custom scenarios that aren't included in the rulebooks, odd rules about army composition, and now Yakface's FAQ. Ultimately it's become clear to me that GW's tournament support has always been lacking. If they were doing a bang-up job, I wouldn't feel any compulsion to start this project.

You should definitely do this. My only question/concern/comment is who gets to determine what's in the codex? Obviously "the players", but what are the credentials to throw your 2cents into it's creation?

Stormtrooper X wrote:You should definitely do this. My only question/concern/comment is who gets to determine what's in the codex? Obviously "the players", but what are the credentials to throw your 2cents into it's creation?

Well, I figured that after the initial draft was done, editing power would be available to all Dakka members, wiki-style. I have design goals which I will type up, but I have no objection if new design goals are voted in. Any disagreements could be resolved with a vote.

The really important part is that playtesting will be needed. This puppy will need to be tested to within an inch of its life if it's going to have enough credibility to take on the world.

A possible consideration: As I understand it, GW generally insist on GW-sponsored events allowing only GW minis.

While there is nothing currently forbidding these events from allowing home-grown rules, I could see them adding a similar clause if this sort of thing became widespread, insisting on only GW codexes...


Maybe its worth running this idea past whoever's running GW's events section these days and seeing if they can get some sort of official word on what GW's position would be on home-grown rules in GW tournaments before investing too much effort in trying to sell this idea.

Since GW can't get their own tournament play rules in order, who cares whether they sign off on it? Their prize support package is so expensive it's more cost effective to give out store credit than trophies. They can't seem to get an organized tournament play or ranking system together that doesn't collapse from neglect, so why shouldn't we do it?

insaniak wrote:A possible consideration: As I understand it, GW generally insist on GW-sponsored events allowing only GW minis.

While there is nothing currently forbidding these events from allowing home-grown rules, I could see them adding a similar clause if this sort of thing became widespread, insisting on only GW codexes...


Maybe its worth running this idea past whoever's running GW's events section these days and seeing if they can get some sort of official word on what GW's position would be on home-grown rules in GW tournaments before investing too much effort in trying to sell this idea.

I doubt that we'll get any sort of go-ahead from an official GW source, at least not until we have a powerful grassroots organization in place. I don't see any point in knocking on the doors of the Halls of Power (so to speak) until we have a large number of independant tournaments using our rules. I can guarantee that they won't give us any sort of official stamp of approval for our "house rules" until we made some serious waves in the tournament scene.

On the other hand, I think it's very unlikely that they'll hand down some sort of edict saying we have to play the game "their way," either. They've said just the opposite for years now.

Krak_kirby wrote: Their prize support package is so expensive it's more cost effective to give out store credit than trophies.

Guess I'm just out of date, because that comes as a surprise. They used to provide freebies for sanctioned tournaments... or at least, they did here in Oz. If they're charging for prize support now, I guess that hanging onto it would indeed be a little less of a concern.

Pariah Press wrote: On the other hand, I think it's very unlikely that they'll hand down some sort of edict saying we have to play the game "their way," either. They've said just the opposite for years now.

For casual gaming, sure. For tournaments, though, allowing rules written by someone other than GW themselves could be seen as undermining their product in exactly the same way as allowing miniatures from other companies.

insaniak wrote:For casual gaming, sure. For tournaments, though, allowing rules written by someone other than GW themselves could be seen as undermining their product in exactly the same way as allowing miniatures from other companies.

It's not the same situation. Using competitors' miniatures takes money away from GW and gives it to their competitors. Using house rules doesn't cost anyone money. Hell, the LatD army list I'm working on will require the player to have the Chaos Marines Codex and the IG codex, so that TWICE as much money for GW!

I don't think that it's inconceivable that GW would try to clamp down on house rules, but I think it's very unlikely, given what I've seen from them over the years.

I think it is a great idea Pariah.

Space Zoats FTW!!

Lormax wrote:We can all already hear the cries of foul if/when that homebrew list sweeps the tournament.

Like that doesn't happen already with official lists when they sweep tournaments?

Say you took the old LatD list from the EoT Codex, right, and updated it to fit with the new Codex: Spikey Loyalists, what would be so bad about that? You'd have units coming from one or two official Codices (Codex: Imperial Guard and Codex: When Good Marines Go Bad) and then a bunch of other units that were legal until they were arbitrarily taken away from us.

You virtually wouldn't have to write any new rules yourself, you'd just be changing the existing EoT list so that it fits with the new Codex.

BYE