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.

kill dem stunties wrote:Their reasoning? probably none at all besides "how can we irritate the RAW players as much as possible? i know lets make rules change #3426434 and call it a "clarification" LOL that really pisses em off!" "oh great idea!" ...

thats how it happened guaranteed.

You win.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:I see no advantage to starting the debate again. As I have said before (the folks I play with and) I follow the INAT as many local tourneys do so -- even the parts we disagree with.

And this sums up the whole problem with the inat faq.

Don't use it. If you want to go to two whole cons a year, well then use it to practice so you are familiar with it.

Otherwise, if I would happen to step in the inat faq, I would just scrape it off the bottom of my shoe just like I do with dog feces.

Nurglitch wrote:That's just it, they have no process or justification. Arbitrary justification is no justification at all, and a non-reproducible process is not a process. If you dig around you get read about it in previous posts that Yakface has made in YMDC, such as here.

What process would you like them to use? It's easy to post about how other people are screwing up-how would you do it better? Be specific, please.

Norbu the Destroyer wrote:Although, if I play someone and they try using the power out of a Land Raider and I say "are you sure you can do that" and they respond, "well the FAQ says I can" I will mark down their sportsmanship by 1, easy as that. I think the spirit of JAWS is you need a fire point but that is my opinion. I am not a fan of people building lists specifically to take advantage of grey areas. Build a nasty list with 7 land raiders, that is fine with me, its a tourney, take 4 land raiders and put a Runepriest in each one, I think that is a little too much. Im sure others will disagree with me, but thats ok.

I think this is the perfect example of why soft scores have to die.

"Follow the rules but only when they agree with my [arbitrary] perception of the rules or you will be penalized."

"Make the hardest, most competitive list possible, as long as it is not too hard or too competitive."

If you are going to a tournament that clearly posts all of the stated regulations long beforehand, then there is an implicit compact that you accept all of their rules and guidelines. If you don't agree with them, then like myself, don't go. If you do go, however, you don't get to dock sportsmanship willy-nilly against people who are doing nothing more than following the rules. Docking sportsmanship to protest an arguably bad FAQ ruling is like taking a sledgehammer to your car because it got stuck in rush hour traffic.

Well Sourclams you are entitled to your opinion, but I think that is the purpose of softscores. If someone creates a list knowing they are pushing a grey area of the rules, I think it is not in the spirit of the game. If a situation like emergency disembark or something like that comes up and we follow the FAQ ruling, I wouldnt down score my opponent because it wasnt his intention going into the match. Build a tough list is fine with me, but knowing it is a controversial way of playing when building a list, ie 4 battlewagons with deff rollas or something along those lines, snikrot attached to Ghazgull, things like that I think are things I would down grade.

The soft scores are a way to counter the "staller", someone pushing every rule, one of the categories is "would you play this person again" I think those are nice equalizers. If everyone downgraded someone because they took 4 runepriests in 4 land raiders maybe they would get the point perhaps they are pushing the limits of the rules. If someone doesnt want soft scores play ard boyz. I think both formats are fine, I just prefer soft scores. The soft scores are there so someone can have a little input as to how the game went. Now I know people abuse this but the judges usually see when someone is "blackballed".

You do have a point though that people will know about the rules ahead of time and this is why I like the Adepticon format. I was just giving my opinion on how I grade soft scores. If people are downgraded for pushing certain rules, it is a way fo the 40k community to regulate themselves by downgrading people who push rules they dont agree with. Now this opens an entire can of worms because people would have all sorts of rulings all over the rule book they dont agree with. Its sort of like That Fing Guy. He doesnt "break" any rules, but no one wants to play him. Eventually he gets the hint and either changes his behavior or no one plays him. If you were continuously downgraded on a softscore for your army composition, maybe you should get the hint and switch it, or dont play tourneys.

Back to the Jawstroversy

It is a way to penalize people who follow the rules. Which is absurd.

If a rule is broken, there are other reprocussions. Soft scores are a way to judge personal bias and taste -- not ability. Nor should they be a way to "regulate", rules do that. If something is allowed, it should not also be penalized.

AgeOfEgos wrote:Actually, after reading the GW 5th Edition FAQ, coupled with the Adepticon ruling that JoWW does not require LOS...it appears you could cast JoWW from inside a Land Raider by measuring from the hull. The relevant sections;

GW 5th Edition FAQ

Q. Can a model use a psychic power that is not a Psychic Shooting Attack if it is embarked in a transport vehicle?
A. Yes. If the power requires line of sight, this is still worked out from the vehicle’s fire points (this will count as one model shooting through that fire point if the power is used in the Shooting phase). If the psychic power does not require line of sight and has a range or an area of effect that is normally measured from the model using it, these are measured from the vehicle’s hull, as explained in the Embarking section on page 66.

Adepticon FAQ

+SW.37H.01 – Q: Does Jaws of the World Wolf require a target and/or line of sight?
A: No [clarification].

Thoughts?

As far as I can tell you’re misapplying the FAQ answers here.

JotWW, since it IS a psychic shooting attack, still requires a fire point.

I see no problem with the INAT FAQ here. The ruling does not allow firing JotWW out of an LR, since the requirement for a fire point is independent of the requirement for LOS.

imweasel wrote:Don't use it. If you want to go to two whole cons a year, well then use it to practice so you are familiar with it.

Otherwise, if I would happen to step in the inat faq, I would just scrape it off the bottom of my shoe just like I do with dog feces.

This is just rude. You can express your disagreement without being disagreeable. The INAT FAQ is still the best of its kind. IME tournaments using it run smoother and better. It’s manifestly successful despite being admittedly imperfect. They're open to new data and new opinions too, though as busy people with lives, they can't be instantly responsive to every comment or complaint.

Can JOtWW be cast from inside a land raider?

If a land raider has a fire point then yes, if it doesn't no.

Mannahnin wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:Actually, after reading the GW 5th Edition FAQ, coupled with the Adepticon ruling that JoWW does not require LOS...it appears you could cast JoWW from inside a Land Raider by measuring from the hull. The relevant sections;

GW 5th Edition FAQ

Q. Can a model use a psychic power that is not a Psychic Shooting Attack if it is embarked in a transport vehicle?
A. Yes. If the power requires line of sight, this is still worked out from the vehicle’s fire points (this will count as one model shooting through that fire point if the power is used in the Shooting phase). If the psychic power does not require line of sight and has a range or an area of effect that is normally measured from the model using it, these are measured from the vehicle’s hull, as explained in the Embarking section on page 66.

Adepticon FAQ

+SW.37H.01 – Q: Does Jaws of the World Wolf require a target and/or line of sight?
A: No [clarification].

Thoughts?

As far as I can tell you’re misapplying the FAQ answers here.

JotWW, since it IS a psychic shooting attack, still requires a fire point.

I see no problem with the INAT FAQ here. The ruling does not allow firing JotWW out of an LR, since the requirement for a fire point is independent of the requirement for LOS.

imweasel wrote:Don't use it. If you want to go to two whole cons a year, well then use it to practice so you are familiar with it.

Otherwise, if I would happen to step in the inat faq, I would just scrape it off the bottom of my shoe just like I do with dog feces.

This is just rude. You can express your disagreement without being disagreeable. The INAT FAQ is still the best of its kind. IME tournaments using it run smoother and better. It’s manifestly successful despite being admittedly imperfect. They're open to new data and new opinions too, though as busy people with lives, they can't be instantly responsive to every comment or complaint.

You're completely right, I was mistaken. I read "...psychic power that is not a Psychic Shooting Attack" as "...psychic power that is a Psychic Shooting Attack". Now that I see my mistake, the ruling makes sense and my question is answered. Thanks for all the help everyone who participated.

Mannahnin, how is it rude to call something what it is? If he were calling it something other than what it very evidently is ....

Comparing someone's work to dog feces does come across as rude to many people.

so, if someone does a completely terrible job at something, you should praise it? No you should let them know what it is, which is crap.

There is a difference between being rude and giving constructive critisism and/or disagreement. You can disagree or criticize without being rude.

wyomingfox wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:Can you link that thread Wyoming, as I must have missed those explanations (which appear reasonable).

The particular thread I pulled from is this one: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/260950.page. Though it OP was talking about Rockfist's TH, a large part of the discussion was looking at how JOTWW worked.

protip: Adding punctuation (such as periods) to web addresses causes them to malfunction.

Here's the above link fixed: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/260950.page

And here's another thread more specifically dealing with JotWW: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/268947.page

I know this might seem way OT but suppose a monstrous creature with a pyschic powers that enhance close combat teleports inside of a landraider which wrecks it and it's base stradles the vehicle outline. He casts a psychic power to get more cc attacks for an enemy unit outside the tank and passes leadership. Is this copestatic or not?

G

kill dem stunties wrote:so, if someone does a completely terrible job at something, you should praise it? No you should let them know what it is, which is crap.

This is just ridiculous. Even if there are a handful of rulings you don't agree with, the FAQ is still 99% solid gold. The simple fact that you think it's terrible tells me everything I need to know about where you're at as far as understanding the game and the tourny environment goes. The fact that you're oh-so-very comfortable crapping all over a very useful product that a group of people has spent a massive amount of unpaid time and energy compiling tells me the rest.

I think someone needs to disconnect the dial up connection from your double-wide until you learn how to behave in civilized company.

Can we all please stick to the facts and stop getting all emo? It's always best to be completely clinically detached when pondering hte rules.

G

It's really late where I'm at, so emo is what I have to work with.

Seriously though, I don't agree with all the rulings in the FAQ, and never have, but that's not the same as saying the whole document is trash. 99% of the FAQ is well thought out and immensely helpful in fairly settling disputes in a tourny environment. Even the departures from RaW (or more often something fuzzy that people mistake for RaW in a dim light) are well thought out and balanced answers designed to facilitate a balanced gaming environment.

Decrying the whole project because of a ruling or two is unwarranted.

Ordznik wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:That's just it, they have no process or justification. Arbitrary justification is no justification at all, and a non-reproducible process is not a process. If you dig around you get read about it in previous posts that Yakface has made in YMDC, such as here.

What process would you like them to use? It's easy to post about how other people are screwing up-how would you do it better? Be specific, please.

Why in the world do I need to do that?

If they are screwing up, they are screwing up, no?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Norbu the Destroyer wrote:Well Sourclams you are entitled to your opinion, but I think that is the purpose of softscores. If someone creates a list knowing they are pushing a grey area of the rules, I think it is not in the spirit of the game. If a situation like emergency disembark or something like that comes up and we follow the FAQ ruling, I wouldnt down score my opponent because it wasnt his intention going into the match. Build a tough list is fine with me, but knowing it is a controversial way of playing when building a list, ie 4 battlewagons with deff rollas or something along those lines, snikrot attached to Ghazgull, things like that I think are things I would down grade.

The soft scores are a way to counter the "staller", someone pushing every rule, one of the categories is "would you play this person again" I think those are nice equalizers. If everyone downgraded someone because they took 4 runepriests in 4 land raiders maybe they would get the point perhaps they are pushing the limits of the rules. If someone doesnt want soft scores play ard boyz. I think both formats are fine, I just prefer soft scores. The soft scores are there so someone can have a little input as to how the game went. Now I know people abuse this but the judges usually see when someone is "blackballed".

You do have a point though that people will know about the rules ahead of time and this is why I like the Adepticon format. I was just giving my opinion on how I grade soft scores. If people are downgraded for pushing certain rules, it is a way fo the 40k community to regulate themselves by downgrading people who push rules they dont agree with. Now this opens an entire can of worms because people would have all sorts of rulings all over the rule book they dont agree with. Its sort of like That Fing Guy. He doesnt "break" any rules, but no one wants to play him. Eventually he gets the hint and either changes his behavior or no one plays him. If you were continuously downgraded on a softscore for your army composition, maybe you should get the hint and switch it, or dont play tourneys.

Back to the Jawstroversy

You think it's not in the spirit of the game? You think they are nice equalizers?

People abuse soft scores. And they think they are justified, just like you are.

You have to understand the process by which the INAT FAQ is created. It's not always necessarily about strictly following RAW and to be honest I think that's a good thing. RAW is definitely useful but it should not be considered as the final say for each and every situation that comes along. Polls are often created to see how the majority feel... That's a good thing too.

G

Fenris-77 wrote:It's really late where I'm at, so emo is what I have to work with.

Seriously though, I don't agree with all the rulings in the FAQ, and never have, but that's not the same as saying the whole document is trash. 99% of the FAQ is well thought out and immensely helpful in fairly settling disputes in a tourny environment. Even the departures from RaW (or more often something fuzzy that people mistake for RaW in a dim light) are well thought out and balanced answers designed to facilitate a balanced gaming environment.

Decrying the whole project because of a ruling or two is unwarranted.

So give me a number on what would make it bad? Three? Ten? Thirty?

A 'document' that changes or breaks some rules based on which way the wind is blowing or how much they want to suck up to gw is...NOT...A...GOOD...THING.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Green Blow Fly wrote:You have to understand the process by which the INAT FAQ is created. It's not always necessarily about strictly following RAW and to be honest I think that's a good thing. RAW is definitely useful but it should not be considered as the final say for each and every situation that comes along. Polls are often created to see how the majority feel... That's a good thing too.

G

Sure, I can agree to a certain extent where some things can't/won't work if you follow raw.

But when things are not broke and rules are changed? That's bad. Period.

And changing a ruling even slightly for 'political reasons' is not ok in my book either.

imweasel wrote:So give me a number on what would make it bad? Three? Ten? Thirty?

Given that it's an optional FAQ that you are under no obligation to use in your own games, I don't see that it matters, to be honest. If you don't like certain rulings, that doesn't make the document bad, it just means that you disagree with certain rulings.

A 'document' that changes or breaks some rules based on which way the wind is blowing or how much they want to suck up to gw is...NOT...A...GOOD...THING.

I'm curious as to how you think that any given ruling in a non-official FAQ could be seen as 'sucking up to GW'...

And changing a ruling even slightly for 'political reasons' is not ok in my book either.

Where has this been the case?

Green Blow Fly wrote:RAW is definitely useful but it should not be considered as the final say for each and every situation that comes along.

In my experience of polls, the trend is for the majority of people to choose the most literal RAW ruling. There's issues like Calgar GOW and Deffrollas where it's basically even, but if there's a clear "right" answer by RAW that's almost always the one that gets the majority of votes.

On this issue, for example, I'm rather certain that more people would opt for no JotWW out of a Land Raider.

Fenris-77 wrote:

kill dem stunties wrote:so, if someone does a completely terrible job at something, you should praise it? No you should let them know what it is, which is crap.

This is just ridiculous. Even if there are a handful of rulings you don't agree with, the FAQ is still 99% solid gold. The simple fact that you think it's terrible tells me everything I need to know about where you're at as far as understanding the game and the tourny environment goes. The fact that you're oh-so-very comfortable crapping all over a very useful product that a group of people has spent a massive amount of unpaid time and energy compiling tells me the rest.

I think someone needs to disconnect the dial up connection from your double-wide until you learn how to behave in civilized company.

Well, if were going to start this with baseless attacks, i think you should probably just go back under your bridge troll ...

99% of the faq is not "solid gold" it is completely evident if you have a basic grip of raw, most of it is clarifications, which means they're unnecessary unless you're a thick headed illiterate. But when they feel the need to change RAW to support their ideal of how the game should function, knowing that their flawed interpretations made to "balance the game as they see fit" affect other people when they want to play without needless changes cited as clarifications, well that pisses some people off.

I would probably be less irked at the inat faq people if they would stop lying, and list all of these rules changes as what they are, and not "clarifications", i still wouldn't use that tripe though.

You seriously have no clue.

Only sheer ignorance, a total lack of experience in large-scale tournament organization/rules adjudication, and a failure to read the preamble to the INAT FAQ can explain your utter fail here.

But thanks for your opinion.

oh look, blanket assertions unsubstantiated by anything, thats cool ...

You really know whether or not ive run tourneys just by the fact i dislike inat faq huh?

Whatever man, think what you will, your opinion means less than nothing to me

Always with the same arguments. "JotWW is a shooting attack so requires a target". Are there any other shooting attacks in the game that don't have a template of any kind and don't require any roll to hit or scatter while passing through terrain? Are you really saying the intention of GW was the 'RAW interpretation', meaning that I first say the target is those Gaunts over there, and then trace the line to a completely opposite direction through a bunch of walls and rocks into a unit of Carnifexes, simply because I have to satisfy the requirement of 'having SOME target within line of sight to be able to cast the spell'? The power is already making a bunch of exceptions to the shooting rules, and I'm definately in the Adepticon camp that it doesn't require line of sight either and effectively doesn't count as a weapon because it doesn't have any characteristics of a weapon and follows basically none of the rules for ranged weapons in "the Shooting Phase" section of the rulebook. I look at the 'shooting sequence' on page 15, and from the six steps in the box the only one that can apply in its entirety is 'remove casualties'.

Basically, all GW has to do is remove the 'psychic shooting attack' from JotWW via errata and the power works again. Then it would also be clear it works from within transports which have zero firing points. Now it's a shooting attack that supposedly requires a target within line of sight which doesn't have to be a target and doesn't require line of sight or rolls to hit or wound or saves while not scattering, being indirect fire or using any templates whatsoever. Makes sense, doesn't it?

Dear GOD I wish I were drunk right now; this thread would be much more fun to mod.

First, KEEP THE THREAD ON TOPIC. Wandering off to discuss the INAT FAQ, and how good it is, and how it's answers are derived, and why it's on parchment paper, and how good it will look with your frilly underwear, have no bearing on the topic at hand.

Second, the term troll gets overused here on Dakka. However, "kill dem stunties", you are flagrantly trying to generate a loud, negative reaction from other posters. It makes you seem boorish, unsophisticated, immature, and make this whole thread very unpleasant. I'm bypassing the normal process and simply suspending your account for some period of time; I clicked on a random day in January. If you have a problem with this, email webmaster@dakkadakka.com to appeal. I don't want to deal with your idiotic posting.

I'm locking this thread. If you'd like to discuss this topic further, please start a new thread.