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.

Wow...

So some guys came up with a giant, comprehensive set of FAQ rulings for a tournament, and then offered them up to the general gaming populace to use if they wished, whether they compete in tournaments or not. Use them for free whenever you want, or don't use them at all, your choice, they are just the house rules for the tournament.

The response from some corners: "who are these people to go around saying that their set of rules opinions are the be-all and end-all of Warhammer 40,000 authority, and finally, who cares if some red bull-chugging tournament jerk who really ought to be slapped down once in awhile gets his way? "

There is just no helping some people. Even horrid little man-beasts whom I would just as soon spit on as look at in the most fetid corner of the game shop will generally say "No, thanks." when offered something nice for free.

grizgrin wrote:Damn. I mean, damn. Someone turn the emo down in here, I felt it a forum away.

If you nlike the INAT FAQ so much, and hate the concept of playing without it; then why not limit your play to opponents and venues that use it?

On the flip, if you hate the INAT FAQ so much, why not just limit your play to opponents and venues that do not use it?

Discussing the ins and outs, weighing opinions and options; things like this I can see as being part of a forums purpose. All this hating, either way? What the heck is the point? Emo release? Serious question, am I just missing the point of an online forum? People that talk to eachother like this in the streets get taken to the principals office.

What am I missing, folks? No, no it can't be. Don't say it. Are you really trying to hate your way to some kind of change in the system? Wait, let me get down on the floor before the laughter starts; I'll end up there anyway.

Its this kind of live and let live philosophy that gets in the way of a good intranets emo fight Gritgrin. When are you going to learn to just make some popcorn, get some rum, and watch the fireworks?

Deadshane wrote:I find that admirable. It impresses me, and I thank them for it.

-Deadshane

Indeed.

ITT: Fight of the centrah!

Wow! This is an amazing thread.

1. The 5th ed rules do suck. There are many holes in it thus the need to clarify the rules especially when they need to be applied to some codexes that date back to early 3rd edition.

2. Rules interpretations are a fact of life and when differences arise, especially mid-game in a competitive tournament it can be hard. A ruling against you AT that time is a lot harder than knowing the prevailing rule going in.

3. While I may not agree with this FAQ or the pablum that GW passes off for a FAQ, it is at least an attempt to deal with #1 and avoid the gridlock an emotions that #2 invariably turns into.

The ideal would be a good core set of rules with a definitive set of errata/effects for each pre-existing codex. GW never does it that way and I doubt they ever will. So... buck up and just enjoy the hobby.

insaniak wrote:Because the current rulebook isn't complete, and has unclear rules and situations that simply aren't covered

DAaddict wrote:1. The 5th ed rules do suck. There are many holes in it thus the need to clarify the rules especially when they need to be applied to some codexes that date back to early 3rd edition.

Examples, please.

I doubt that either of you can come up with even a handful of legitimate rulebook issues.


Codices, however, are another matter, and that is tied primarily to the age of the Codices. Perhaps GW should simply cancel any of the older Codices that they have problems with?

Most issues in fifth arise from the third edition codexes and very early fourth edition codexes people use in it. Not the ruleset itself. They are just out of date.

JohnHwangDD wrote:...Codices, however, are another matter,...

Yes truly!

Playing any GW game is unique given the date it is played at because of the dynamic nature of the production cycles for codices (and other rules).

I dare say this dynamic element ads a lot of appeal for tthe large majority of the player base who innevitably crave "newness". This makes playing 40k, or any GW game a "living" expereince that changes with time.

Unfortunately the downside to this is outdated publication and the challenege of maintaing an aging product line.

To those who see this condition as irritating I agree.

To those who see it as exciting I also agree.

Those who have played at least a year, or spoken with veterans of the hobby should easily be able to discern the carrot and the stick of retailing in the marketplace...

That said, a group of dedicated fan base who do enough work to codify a set of clarifications for an event in a snapshot of time, and distribute it in good spirit, deserve to be celebrated. As hitting the moving target is hard, and distributing your work for free is generous and noble.

Support Adepticon and buy things from their sponsors I say!

While there are disadvantages with GW's release cycle, it's profitable for them. And the release of stuff outside the initial codex release, is imho, a great step (and Orks will eventually get a Wave 3 with buggies, Wazdakka, the Warphead Characters, and maybe plastic artillery or dreads or kans or all the above), and helps keep a line 'fresh'.

PP is coming to an interesting period. The WM storyline is basically wrapped-up. Since all the factions have pretty much two of everything, they're doing more Unique units, solos, and jacks. And they're putting out a new faction. I'm curious to see how they keep people's interest up in the original factions, without making a number of units obsolete (and there are a number that are virtually obsolete now anyway). So, there's a release schedule that doesn't cycle, and it could possible crash (they're creative, and I'm sure they'll come up with a good solution, I'm just curious to see what direction they take).

John: You might be right that the codexes cause as much as 90% of the rules issues. However, I am fairly certain that YMDC contains a few interesting grey spots in regards to the rule book. The issue with ICs and granting abilities "to his unit" comes to mind.

I do agree that the 5th edition rules are pretty good, and much better than 4th edition. I just think they still have a ways to go before FAQs become as unnessecary as GW seems to think.

The "his unit" wordings are all in Codices.

Wehrkind wrote:...they still have a ways to go before FAQs become as unnessecary as GW seems to think.

Well said. Furthermore I wouldn't even expect FAQs for free...

I am amazed why they do not publish annuals anymore with collections of FAQs and articles from whitedwarf, alternate army lists and the like each year?

I for one have purchased at least one of every Annual ever published... Wouldn't that be an easy and profitable way to clean up all the lingering oddities especially in a year when the main book is re published?

It could have:

stats sheets
Quick reference guides
FAQ copies
Official published copies of the army lists in limbo: Kroot Mercs, Armored Co. etc.
Errata
Torunament (or additional) missions
White dwarf article reprints

???

With content like that, I'd pay 50-90 for the book, if it was a nice hardback book like the rulebook.

JokerGod wrote:Its bad because a hand full of people should not be permitted to re-create the rules as they see fit.

And so once again: Why not? The rulebook says that they can.

If someone else chooses to play that, for example, Deff Rollas cause ramming hits on enemy vehicles, that doesn't affect your game in the slightest unless you agree to play the same way.

Nobody has broken into your house, rewritten your rulebook and reprogrammed your brain (You must unlearn what you have learned...)

They have written a set of clarifications and errata for use in their own event (which they're free to run however they please, using whatever rules they like) and for use by anyone else who wants to agree to use them.

What's bad is people coming along and trying to dictate how other people should be playing the game.

By creating the FAQ and basically saying "Here are the real rules! You shall all follow!"

I'm completely at a loss as to where you have gotten the idea that this is what they have done.

We would not need FAQs, or anything of the sort if the lot of you would stop being childish little children and admit that you COULD BE WRONG!

Sorry, that one's going to need a little more explanation as well, because I have no idea what you mean.

Did any one ever stop to think "Hey, maby GW is writing great rules because they leave SMALL things open for debate?

No, actually, I can't say that I did. Deliberately leaving holes in the rules for people to talk about doesn't make your ruleset good... it makes it a deliberately shoddy ruleset that's full of holes.

The rules being full of holes doesn't help you learn the rules better. It forces you to make up your own rules to cover the holes...

Insaniak wrote:

Jokergod wrote:Did any one ever stop to think "Hey, maby GW is writing great rules because they leave SMALL things open for debate?

No, actually, I can't say that I did. Deliberately leaving holes in the rules for people to talk about doesn't make your ruleset good...

I never thought that either.

This becomes really apparent when one travels and plays, which I have done while traveling professionally, leaving amibuity is a real pain. It also becomes more of an issue during a big show, when people come from all over. Those kinds of events are great spectacles, and are wonderfuly assisted by a gentlemens agreement to the rules, it's actually very sportsmanlike and forward thinking to do so.

EDIT: quote tag restructure

Frazz: Popcorn and rum? Are you serious? That's hardcore gross. Given a choice between snacking on popcorn and rum, or having a coca-cola enema, I'd have to think that one over. However, taste in snacks aside, I understand your point. Don't agree with it entirely, but I see it. In answer to your question, probably never. Oh, I'm not about live and let live necessarily. Just not into the playground style of conflict resolution. This is basically "My ruleset can beat up your ruleset!"

JohnHDD: I applaud your request for examples as to why the 5th ed rules suck. Critical analysis in an open forum is an effective way of John Q letting the powers that be know what and where concerns are. You make a good point with this request.

Wherekind: "Horrid little man-beast" is now my phrase of the week.

JohnnyHDD: Pardon, but how the heck are you coming up with the FAQ as a necessary evil in a tourney? I play in tourneys a bit, even with some Adepticon players. Nice guys. I've never even READ this FAQ, much less used it, much LESS been informed that it was fair game in a tourney. On what is this comment based?

Why are people so ticked off over this faq? Is it because the people that came up with it are trying to ram it down people's throats or what?

No one's trying to ram it down anyone's throats. It's a part of the Adepticon
tournament. If people don't want to use it, they don't have to go.

malfred wrote:The fewer 30 second discussions over rules help move the game along. The goal of a FAQ
is to make gameplay easier, not harder. Even though it's likely that controversial decisions
might spark a long winded argument, more often than not, a well written FAQ moves more
games along in a more cordial atmosphere which helps keep large events on schedule. A
late running event can really suck the fun out of attending.

Sure, an FAQ should make gameplay easier. An FAQ also shouldn't need to be 70-80 pages. An FAQ is supposed to address "Frequently Asked Questions", not fix, alter, or comment upon the state of the game or the 'funness' to be had by various players and armies.

I've played in over 10 GTs that GW has run, many without much in the way of FAQs, and I can count on less than one hand the number of rules issues that came up. Now, maybe its different in an Adepticon or Gladiator type event, where all the gloves are off? I don't know, its not my style of play, so I wouldn't participate.

I think it might be interesting to have a non-aggressive discussion about what an FAQ should do or be (I've seen FAQs for 40k where it asks how Rapid Fire works. I mean, come on), versus what is basically an "Adepticon 40k Ruleset" (and I'm not calling out Adepticon here at all, it just happens to be the topic). I mean, isn't this "FAQ" in essence, a whole different version of 40k, ala HBMC and "40k Revisited"?

grizgrin wrote:JohnnyHDD: Pardon, but how the heck are you coming up with the FAQ as a necessary evil in a tourney?

Among strangers who won't / don't / can't have the time or inclination to work things out amicably, there needs to be some impartial and disinterested arbiter of the rules, and I think a FAQ is a decent solution. That said, a FAQ won't solve everyone's needs, it cannot be "perfect" (so some answers will be "wrong"). So, I see FAQs as a necessary evil.

I think it would be preferable to kick back and discuss the proper solution amongst one's friends over a beer when the dice are cold.

malfred wrote:No one's trying to ram it down anyone's throats. It's a part of the Adepticon
tournament. If people don't want to use it, they don't have to go.

That's too bad then. Someone goes to the trouble of working on something cool and for whatever reason get all this pushback. There are definitely some thin skins in this hobby if people are getting their panties all bunched up over a set of home brewed rules made to help them out, especially since it seems there's an option to only use them if wanted.

This FAQ isn't necessary, but judge's rulings on rules questions are a fact of tournament life. I've never been to a single tournament where there wasn't a question asked to the judge about rules. At a small tournament, one judge can handle it. At GW events, they have GW staff who theoretically know the rules as well as anybody.

For large scale independent events, with multiple judges, rather than have conflicting rulings on the same issue it is a useful tool to have a set of "house rules" to fall back upon.

the simple fact is that there is no way to not have rules disagreements, and that means judges get involved, and the FAQ let's people know before hand how judges will rule on many issues. It also prevents judges from being in a situation of springing rules on people. Everybody knows how they will rule on these issues beforehand.

If anybody thinks that rules interpretations aren't a big deal in tournaments, see any of the threads regarding the final game at the top table of 'Ard Boyz finals, where a controversial ruling dramatically changed the nature of the final game.

Ah, I see Johnny. I thought you were saying that the Adepticon FAQ had somehow become indespensible and gospel in common RTT tourney play.

Since it seems you are just stating that a FAQ is a good rtool to fill in the weak spots, I would have to agree.

Okay. Example of why this FAQ is needed, to do with a seperate game, namely Warhammer Fantasy Battle.

I have a Goblin Battle Standard Bearer, carrying the Spider Banner. The Spider Banner grants all Goblins in the same unit the Bearer has joined (or it was bought for) Poisoned Attacks (rolls of 6 to hit wound automatically) for both Ranged AND Combat attacks.

I then attach the Goblin Battle Standard Bearer to a Spearchukka.

Now, do the shots from the Spearchukka now count as Poisoned? This is not clear, and is an extremely odd situation. Now, the Bolthrower has it's own Statline for wounds and toughness. This suggests it is a seperate entity to the Goblins, and indeed, NOT a Goblin. However, it lacks it's own BS. Ergo, it is a weapon fired by a Goblin. At that point, the shot becomes a Goblin Ranged Attack, and therefore poisoned?

As I said, no clear ruling one way or other. With a Tournament FAQ, they can state in advance how oddities like this will be handled on that day. They are absolutely not offering the answer, just an answer.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Okay. Example of why this FAQ is needed, to do with a seperate game, namely Warhammer Fantasy Battle.

I have a Goblin Battle Standard Bearer, carrying the Spider Banner. The Spider Banner grants all Goblins in the same unit the Bearer has joined (or it was bought for) Poisoned Attacks (rolls of 6 to hit wound automatically) for both Ranged AND Combat attacks.

I then attach the Goblin Battle Standard Bearer to a Spearchukka.

Now, do the shots from the Spearchukka now count as Poisoned? This is not clear, and is an extremely odd situation. Now, the Bolthrower has it's own Statline for wounds and toughness. This suggests it is a seperate entity to the Goblins, and indeed, NOT a Goblin. However, it lacks it's own BS. Ergo, it is a weapon fired by a Goblin. At that point, the shot becomes a Goblin Ranged Attack, and therefore poisoned?

As I said, no clear ruling one way or other. With a Tournament FAQ, they can state in advance how oddities like this will be handled on that day. They are absolutely not offering the answer, just an answer.

Stuff like this makes me want to bang my head against the way until no longer able to do so. You're making a complicated issue out of something that does not need to be. If this is what tournament regulars think of, perhaps I was wrong, you need a FAQ the size of the Encyclopedia Britannica and a huge man at each table with a baseball bat to enforce it.

Yes and no.

To me, the answer is simply, yes, the Spear Chukka does indeed benefit, as it is a Goblin fired device.

However, the implication of that can be horrific. If I fire a shot up the flank of say, Chaos Knights and roll a 6 to hit, then 6 Knights are automatically removed (after those 6 the S drops to zero, prevent me from wounding. Or does it?)

As such, specifically in a Tournament setting, this is something you need a calling on that is not from yourself or your opponent. In friendly games you just agree before hand and get on with things.

Being that Warhammer Fantasy is much more about maneuvering than 40K, if the enemy lets such a weapon get a line on his Knights, I say he has it coming. Shrewd maneuvering is half the battle, after all.

No true, but even so it's a helluva of a surprise punishment!

If the rumors about the new Stegadon are true, then even maneuvering won't save you...

The beast is still best off storming into combat in a support role.

It's a one in six chance of getting the poisoned shot, let alone getting into a suitable position to make the most of it!