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.

With the recent release of the new IG FAQ, we've decided not to update the IG section of the INAT in time for 'Ard Boyz. I realize that this may disappoint some, but after reviewing the IG FAQ, we've decided that the most egregious things have been addressed in the GW FAQ, while at the same time, the IG FAQ sets some precedents that spread out beyond just the IG and could affect rulings in other areas. Rather than rush an analysis and revision, we've decided to take our time and make sure that we get it right and maintain consistency throughout the document.

What does this mean?

Well, the Ard Boyz finals are (as far as I know) still planning to use the INAT. The INAT itself doesn't overrule any of the FAQs, so essentially, the current incarnation of the INAT (ver 2.2 - available here) will be used. If you're wondering about Guard, simply ignore the Guard section of the INAT, as it has absolutely no relevance to the current IG Codex.

If there are any more questions you'd like to see answered when we complete INAT v3.0, just post them here.

Thanks.

Good call Cent.

G

Just out of curiosity, will you post what your rulings were side by side to the GW ones?

Gwar! wrote:Just out of curiosity, will you post what your rulings were side by side to the GW ones?

No. (we've made it a policy not to contradict the GW FAQ, so we change the INAT when it happens. )

Mabye you could consider updating the current INAT to a 2.2.1 where you include the GW IG rulings and include the few IG rulings GW left out (such as the interaction of the pysker battle squad with stubborn, mob rule, ... etc)

Centurian99 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Just out of curiosity, will you post what your rulings were side by side to the GW ones?

No. (we've made it a policy not to contradict the GW FAQ, so we change the INAT when it happens. )

I know you change the INAT FAQ, I was just curious to see how "accurate" you were. But if ya don't want to, it's no biggy

I would be interested in knowing how PSB works in advance. It won't (likely) change the list I bring, but could save having to hunt down a judge and get a preemptive ruling the day of.

Obviously no contradictions to the official FAQ (the official, unofficial rules), but a mini-FAQ addressing issues not covered by the GW one would be nice. If the work was already done/mostly done, it seems a shame not to release what is already polished (having no idea how the actual process works, it seems as if some rulings would be more easily reached than others...?)

Either way, you all do a great job on the FAQ (some naysayers notwithstanding).

kartofelkopf wrote:I would be interested in knowing how PSB works in advance. It won't (likely) change the list I bring, but could save having to hunt down a judge and get a preemptive ruling the day of.

Obviously no contradictions to the official FAQ (the official, unofficial rules), but a mini-FAQ addressing issues not covered by the GW one would be nice. If the work was already done/mostly done, it seems a shame not to release what is already polished (having no idea how the actual process works, it seems as if some rulings would be more easily reached than others...?)

Either way, you all do a great job on the FAQ (some naysayers notwithstanding).

Thanks. We did discuss releasing just the IG section as a separate addendum, after removing the questions addressed in the FAQ, but decided not to for a variety of reasons, mainly revolving around a desire to maintain consistency in rulings.

If there's something that you're goin to need to know, I'd make sure you ask whoever is going to be the onsite judge. I haven't heard conclusively who that's going to be.

Thanks for the update!

That's good news, so one army at the Ard Boyz finals will be using GW rules.

Linkdead wrote:That's good news, so one army at the Ard Boyz finals will be using GW rules.

Which of course leaves open the question as to whether pure GW rules will answer all the questions that may arise...

Linkdead wrote:That's good news, so one army at the Ard Boyz finals will be using GW rules.

That isn't good news you know...