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.

Just curious if the INAT v3.2 (as Yakface slated might come out around the release of the Tyranid Codex) will be edited to include anything similar to what the GW FAQ says for Space Wolves, or if the GW FAQ and the Adepticon FAQ will be at odds at upcoming tournaments, since the two contradict each other in many rights in regard to Space Wolf rules. Yak? Or anyone in the know?

Neither News nor Rumours. Moving to 40K Discussions.

GW FAQ over adepticon for sure...I'm sure there will be an update..

puma713 wrote:Just curious if the INAT v3.2 (as Yakface slated might come out around the release of the Tyranid Codex) will be edited to include anything similar to what the GW FAQ says for Space Wolves, or if the GW FAQ and the Adepticon FAQ will be at odds at upcoming tournaments, since the two contradict each other in many rights in regard to Space Wolf rules. Yak? Or anyone in the know?

Who knows?

Relying on the inat faq is....foolish at best and dangerous at the worst.

That's a bold claim - the INAT FAQ outright changes quite a few rules that they don't approve of, moving the 40k scene at Adepticon quite out of the realm of the 40k universe created by GW.

Dodiez wrote:That's a bold claim - the INAT FAQ outright changes quite a few rules that they don't approve of, moving the 40k scene at Adepticon quite out of the realm of the 40k universe created by GW.

It did that already. The new sw faq provides ample proof that the inat faq (besides just some of the inat faq 'clarifications') was really a way for a small group of people to force
folks to play the game the way they wanted it played. How it got the broad acceptance it did is a key indicator of how the rules have gotten to the state they have.

No more. No less.

imweasel wrote:

puma713 wrote:Just curious if the INAT v3.2 (as Yakface slated might come out around the release of the Tyranid Codex) will be edited to include anything similar to what the GW FAQ says for Space Wolves, or if the GW FAQ and the Adepticon FAQ will be at odds at upcoming tournaments, since the two contradict each other in many rights in regard to Space Wolf rules. Yak? Or anyone in the know?

Who knows?

Relying on the inat faq is....foolish at best and dangerous at the worst.

Regardless - many tournaments use the INAT FAQ. I want to know that when I show up with Logan Deep Striking with a unit of Multi-Melta-carrying Long Fangs that I'll be able to fire the first turn when they arrive (GW FAQ) or that I won't (INAT).

puma713 wrote:Regardless - many tournaments use the INAT FAQ. I want to know that when I show up with Logan Deep Striking with a unit of Multi-Melta-carrying Long Fangs that I'll be able to fire the first turn when they arrive (GW FAQ) or that I won't (INAT).

Fortunately for me, I have never participated in a tourney where the inat faq was used. Ever.

Looks like I skip on the foolish and dangerous part.

I'd just call ahead...

Considering that the decision as to whether or not the INAT FAQ is in use is done by the individual tournament operators, if you're going to a tournament in the next two or three weeks the wisest thing to do would be to ASK YOUR TOURNAMENT OPERATOR what the deal is. If you have a tournament operator who insists that the INAT FAQ trumps a GW FAQ which came out after the INAT FAQ, that's a problem which no one on this message board, not even Yakface, can help you with.

However, even though I am in no way affiliated with the FAQ committee, I am so touched by imweasel's concern that I will make a pledge. I will hereby refund DOUBLE the amount of money that anyone paid to the INAT FAQ committee members for the privilege of using their FAQ from now until the SW section is updated. Please send a PM with the address to which you would like your check, money order or PayPal payment for US $0 sent.

solkan wrote:However, even though I am in no way affiliated with the FAQ committee, I am so touched by imweasel's concern that I will make a pledge. I will hereby refund DOUBLE the amount of money that anyone paid to the INAT FAQ committee members for the privilege of using their FAQ from now until the SW section is updated. Please send a PM with the address to which you would like your check, money order or PayPal payment for US $0 sent.

Because it's free, it doesn't make it bad?

Interesting take on it...

The fact that it's free, combined with the fact that you're under no obligation to use it does make all the vitriol directed at it somewhat puzzling, at the very least.

I'm particularly puzzled by the suggestion that the INAT crew are 'forcing' people to play the game their way, since use of the FAQ is completely optional, and they've asked for player feedback on it all the way through the creation and maintaining of it.

insaniak wrote:The fact that it's free, combined with the fact that you're under no obligation to use it does make all the vitriol directed at it somewhat puzzling, at the very least.

I'm particularly puzzled by the suggestion that the INAT crew are 'forcing' people to play the game their way, since use of the FAQ is completely optional, and they've asked for player feedback on it all the way through the creation and maintaining of it.

I agree, and I thank them for the effort to try to plug in gray areas, until an official GW FAQ comes out. It did say that the GW FAQ takes precedence. It is a good FAQ, we use it in our area for issues not covered by the GW FAQ's.