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.

We have also created a petition if you do support this idea at http://40kfaq.blogspot.com/

solkan wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:No disrespect to what the INAT council and Gwar have done, but their are instances where the INAT has ruled on something just because they ruled on something completely different from a different codex and thus don't want to break their own trend (hive commander versus autarch ruling).

What?!? They try to be consistent in their rulings in an attempt to avoid appearing arbitrary and capricious and you consider that a problem. In what bizarro world does your position, that rulings should be inconsistent between codices, make sense?

So while both parties have taken upon themselves to do this "charity" work for the gaming masses, there also seems to be a invested interest in announcing their FAQs are "right" all the time.

As opposed to the vested interest of the parties who campaign against the FAQs because they disagree with the rulings or a different ruling would benefit their army more?

The "bizarro" world that tells me a Space Marine is not a Tyranid is not a Ork is not a Imperial Guard is not a Tau, etc, etc. I consider it a problem when a new codex has a new rule and the basis of their decision is based on an old codex. Each codex should be looked at as a separate entity and ruled on that basis instead of just relying on past decisions to dictate.

Case in point being the Tyranid codex decisions being based on IG and Eldar codex decisions. Even the Mawloc issue being based upon what Spore Mines USED to be able to do in an older codex. I have been in as much error of citing precedent as others when you really can't cite precedent in a rules environment that is forever changing.

As far as I know, Gwar plays SW as one of his armies and yet said he would refuse to play by the GW SW FAQ because he didn't agree with it compared to his own FAQ.

I have mentioned it before, but I do not consider GW FAQ just house rules while others choose to declare that fact in the face of how they want to play the rules.

Brother Ramses wrote:The "bizarro" world that tells me a Space Marine is not a Tyranid is not a Ork is not a Imperial Guard is not a Tau, etc, etc. I consider it a problem when a new codex has a new rule and the basis of their decision is based on an old codex. Each codex should be looked at as a separate entity and ruled on that basis instead of just relying on past decisions to dictate.

Rules have to be consistent, though. Each codex is not a completely separate entity. It exists as a part of the rules as a whole. So if a rule worded a given way works one way for Space Marines, a similar rule worded in the same fashion for Imperial Guard should work the same way.

Anything else is inconsistent and confusing for players.

No, I disagree.

The GW FAQS are not clarifications, or a guide on how to read the rules. They refer to how GW plays that specific rule and no other. This is how in some cases they change the rule entirely, and why they state that their FAQs are houserules. They are how GW decides that rule 'should' work, such as any other house rule, and we cannot draw interpretations from it.

While I support the idea in theory, it also annoys me that such people who would volunteer to do this, however noble, are essentially doing GW's job for them for free, are they not? It's one thing to design additional content (mission scenarios, campaign rules, what have you), but clarifying and fixing rules that are vague and imprecise either out of GWs laziness or incompetence? Frankly, I'd rather put my heart into organizing a boycott of GW until they made a coherent rulebook and concrete, comprehensive FAQ instead of doing their work for them. Hit them hard enough in the bottom line and they would realize it's in their best interest to actually take the "game" part as seriously as the models.

I would love for GW to make their own FAQ and set it in stone.

The INAT and other fan-based FAQs have so many serious issues that I would not want my local gaming group or any of the tournaments nearby to use them. The guys I play with and I have these conversations pretty regularly, so I guess you could say that we have our own little FAQ anyway.

I prefer a discussion at the time of the dispute to be honest. I'm usually happy with the way it works out. Just as an example, the whole "shooting after popping smoke with a Land Raider" debate has never come up with anyone that I have played which is a pretty considerable number. They all seem to think that the 0+1=1 argument wraps it up pretty nicely. As this is the only thing that makes sense to me and anyone that I know, I would have a hard time implementing the INAT which goes in the completely opposite direction.

gannam wrote:If all of the major tournament and GT sponsors got together once a year and released a comprehensive set of rulings on different gray areas of the game would you adopt this into your local meta game as a way to resolve disputes?

I have only been playing this game for a year now and have noticed that what is lacking is real consensus on these matters. I would even be willing to donate to such a cause to help bring the various parties together.

I know that there are challenges to this sort of thing and some will say, great idea, but it will never happen, but we will never know if no one ever tries. If this forum gets an overwhelming response, I will plunk down some of my hard earned money to make this thing happen including a website to talk about it, and will give up my own time to help organize it.

I will also post this on Heresy online and BOLS as well.

We have also created a petition if you do support this idea at http://40kfaq.blogspot.com/

Aside from little to no involvement from GW, we already have done this for our large tournamets, and most people find it ok and play with it outside tournament as well. Its based on a Mix of RAW. RAI. and common sense. used in Italy, Austria, and Germany, as well as Slovinia and Crotia. its the stadand rules FAQ and covers most grey areas in both rules and army books.

True, sometimes those rules are a bit off. but on average they fill the gaps, give clear direction and finality to disputes, and quite frankly work if not 100% better than flipping a coin or abusing the loopholes or gaps. Mostly in its favor is that its fair, and its not like GW has one so....

It sounds like your region already did something similar to what we are trying to accomplish here.

I voted No. I don't know the rules very well, and I am still new learning the rules. The way I see it, I don't want no FAQ, I want GW to do a proper job, proof read their codex and rules, and playtest them and then release the codex.

The way I see it, when people say they want an official FAQ, it's just like how people say it's ok for a computer game company to release a shoddy game or a game not finished and it can be patched later. I don't want patch later, I want it the way it's suppose to play right away.

Just like I don't want to wait for a Tyranid FAQ later, I want to be able to play all the rules that are in the codex now. For their to be FAQ, it means GW didn't do it's job properly the first time.

gannam wrote:If all of the major tournament and GT sponsors got together once a year and released a comprehensive set of rulings on different gray areas of the game would you adopt this into your local meta game as a way to resolve disputes?

I have only been playing this game for a year now and have noticed that what is lacking is real consensus on these matters. I would even be willing to donate to such a cause to help bring the various parties together.

I know that there are challenges to this sort of thing and some will say, great idea, but it will never happen, but we will never know if no one ever tries. If this forum gets an overwhelming response, I will plunk down some of my hard earned money to make this thing happen including a website to talk about it, and will give up my own time to help organize it.

I will also post this on Heresy online and BOLS as well.

We have also created a petition if you do support this idea at http://40kfaq.blogspot.com/

For the longest time, people on the internet have constantly said: "Why doesn't someone just write out a comprehensive fan FAQ for 40K, I know I'd use it if they did?" or "Why don't people get together all the questions for 40K and send them to GW to answer?" or "Why don't we get everyone together from each of the major forums on the internet and make a FAQ for 40K that all the tournaments could use?"

These topics come up again, and again and again and again. So guess what? I decided: what the heck, I think I could pull it off, so I'll stop sitting on the fence and being one of those people saying 'I wish someone would do it' and I'll do it myself.

I collected all the questions I could together and created a Dakka FAQ that was just a collection of all the questionable grey areas in the rules for 40k...but it was written in a way that asked very long detailed questions (in order to ensure that if GW got a hold of them they'd understand the complexity behind each issue).

Adepticon was putting out their own FAQ each year for their tournaments, and they started to use my questions in their FAQ. The problem was, this was creating an overly long FAQ...as you really need to craft each FAQ question and answer in order to convey the maximum amount of information in the smallest amount of text possible.

So I agreed to come on board and try to write a FAQ for use at Adepticon...but I figured if I was going to take the time to do this right, then we needed to write the FAQ in a generic enough format that would allow anyone who wanted to use it for their tournament or event to be able to do so.


In other words...let's do this for real. Let's make the FAQ that everyone always says should be done but never wants to take the time and energy to make a reality. So I wrote it. It wasn't easy, it still isn't easy, but we did it.

You know why the INAT exists and works when so many others have failed? Because it is kept small. I alone write and edit it. My writing may have many flaws, but by keeping all of the writing to a single person that means I'm completely responsible for collecting all the questions and writing all the answers (rulings) that we come up with. It also means I don't have to wait or consult with anyone to get to work...when I'm ready to do some writing I do, and I'm able to put the extra time in for hours on end in the middle of the night because there isn't anyone else I need to consult with when it comes to the actual writing of the document.

And once I finish writing a first draft of a new version, I send it off to the rest of the council. They look it over and we then get together on a conference call, vote on each issue and I go back and re-write the changes that we voted on.

That system works because one person (me) is willing to put in the effort to get it all written and then the other people on the council are willing to put in the effort to read the document, consider their opinions and then put aside hours upon hours to make a conference call where we spend these hours arguing with each other and anguishing about how each ruling is going to be hated by some players no matter which way we rule.


It is absolutely true that all the people responsible for the rulings in the INAT are connected to Adepticon, because that was the genesis of the whole project...Adepticon needs a FAQ so let's make a good one that perhaps others can use too. But the thing to remember about that fact is that the people who volunteer to help with Adepticon do come from a variety of places. I live in LA, and Greg Sparks lives in Toledo, for example. Yes, we both contribute to Adepticon in some way, but its not like this is a collection of buddies that are getting together to try to force everybody to play 40K the same way...we're a diverse collection of players who help to put on a kick-ass 40K tournament and recognize that a FAQ is needed to make sure tournament judges are all ruling the same way.


Am I opposed to having people from other major conventions involved in making INAT rulings? Of course not. In fact, everyone on the INAT recognizes that is something that would be a great step forward and something we're very keen to do. But the problem is, you have to understand that it is rather difficult to get a bunch of people with very different social lives from different parts of the country (in different time zones) to find the time to sit on a conference call for hours at a time. The more people you add to that mix, the more difficult it becomes!

The other thing people have to understand about being someone who rules on the INAT, is that you have to check your ego at the door. At the end of the day, you are just one vote and while you may feel that some particular ruling is idiotic and wrong, you have to be willing to stand behind it at the end of the day and say, for better or for worse that the majority rules and we're going to run with that ruling even though I personally don't think its right.

Finally, you have to be someone who is able to take criticism and not let it get to you (too much). We take a LOT of flak for the INAT, and for the most part you don't see any of the members of the INAT council flying off the handle and blasting back at the very nasty claims that get leveled at us. We're not perfect at this, hell we're human after all, but overall I think we do a fantastic job of taking the high road from the criticisms we do receive. This is very important as all it would take is one instance of an INAT council-member flying off the handle inappropriately at a critic to permanently tarnish the reputation of the entire council.

So while we do want to diversify who is on the INAT council to people running other tournaments, we also have to be very careful about screwing up the formula we have on the council right now that allows us to successfully continue to put out updates on a regular basis. But that is a goal we're eventually hoping to get to.


But when you say: "we will never know if no one ever tries", you do know that we've tried, and continue to try very, very hard? That's *what* we're doing.

The main issue you point to about the INAT is that there are several tournaments that choose not to utilize it...which is their right. Any fan FAQ is going to be completely unofficial, so any and every tournament will have the choice of whether to use it or not.

I'd say the #1 reason why anyone wouldn't want to use the INAT (or any FAQ) is because they don't agree with some (or all) of the rulings...but the problem is, nobody will ever agree.

Just look at some of the rules polls I've run here on Dakka:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/YMTC_-_How_YOU_Play_the_Game_of_40k


You'll find that many, if not most hot-button issues in 40K are 'hot button' because players disagree about what the rules say and/or how the issue should be resolved. So let's say we add the head of every 'major' tournament (whatever that criteria is) to the INAT council. Let's say we re-vote on every ruling and all the rulings turn out to be exactly the same (because these issues *are* split between different gamers). Now what?

Are these tournament organizers suddenly going to accept the INAT because they had a vote, even though the ruling is ultimately still the same? If that's the case, those tournament organizers should perhaps reconsider their stance about the INAT right now, because I can honestly tell you that every ruling we put out that creates a big stir is one that is split in our own voting. So yes, adding a few more people may end up swinging a few rulings one way or the other but at the end of the day there is always going to be a big segment of gamers that disagree with every ruling. That's just the nature of the beast.

If there is anyone out there who honestly believes there is some magical set of FAQ answers that could be put out that every gamer would accept, you need to wake up. Language is a tricky subject that leads to differing interpretations when read by different people. Every FAQ ruling will have people who disagree with it. Hell, even when GW releases a FAQ you have people who think (including myself) that some of their rulings are 'wrong' or 'bad'.

You have some players that think FAQs should always stick only to (what they believe to be) the RAW. You have other gamers that believe that FAQs should step up and change the rules to make the game better, and every imaginable position in between.

It is categorically impossible to create a FAQ that pleases even close to everyone...and this includes tournament organizers as they are also gamers with their own opinions on how issues should be resolved as well.


At the end of the day if you want to try to re-do what we've already done with the INAT, feel free to do so. I've wished enough people good luck on these kinds of projects already to know that you've got a rough road ahead of you if you try. As always, if you want to use the INAT as a basis for your own document, feel free to do so...it is a resource open for use to anyone for any reason they want.

I really appreciate your reply to this. I would like you to know that my inspiration for doing all of this was based on the hard work that INAT has done. I actually printed out the INAT FAQ's and walked into my local gaming store to say "hey, here are some FAQ's you don't have to write your own". I was laughed off the premises.

I applaud the work you do at INAT, but I do think that we should at least look at using your rulings as an example for the larger community. If only a few other major tournaments used the INAT, or some variation of that, then I think it would gain a much larger adoption in the community.

I use the INAT FAQ at home when I play friendly games with my kids, and I think you have done a wonderful job. It doesn't matter if I agree with 100% of the document or not. Its an excellent tool that you are providing at no cost to the community.

The fact that the writer of the INAT FAQ is even deeming to reply to this thread tells me that this topic is important to the community. Its in all our best interests to come to a consensus, and thats not about making everyone happy either, its just about making things a little less confusing to everyone.

The main argument I hear about the INAT is that it often doesn't just rule one way or another on ambiguous rules, clarify situations or shoot down ridiculous rules such as no-eyes-no-shooting. It often completely changes the rules, or puts a rule there where it's not supposed to be.

Hey Chuck,

Consensus is the biggest problem. We can tell you from experience that achieving a consensus everyone will accept is nigh impossible. The gaming community takes their own style of play to heart and when outsiders "question" that style by offering another view point (such as the INAT), they become very defensive. The INAT team realizes this and accepts that as Jon says - people will not like all of the rules decisions. I personally would be willing to bet that no one agrees with 100% of the rulings. If the INAT tried to get every single person to agree with all the rulings, it would fail because we would never be able to produce a usable document.

As far as events using the INAT goes:

1. AdeptiCon in Lombard, IL
2. DaBoyz GT in Rochester, NY
3. NW Conquest GT in Seattle, WA (I believe the rest of the Conquest Events are going to use it too).
4. BashCon in Toledo along with any smaller Toledo events.
5. 2009 'ard Boyz Finals in Chicago per GW US recommendation

These events are just off the top of my head. 40K Radio backs it as their primary FAQ outside of the GW FAQs. There are a whole host of other areas that are using it as well.

As far as the INAT team goes, it is comprised of a number of professionals that have a wide variety of experience. These include at least a few IT professionals, a law student, a game store owner, a project manager for turbine installations and a project manager/chemical engineer (myself). We have 135+ years of gaming / 40K experience between all of us. So the basis for such a project is really already formed.

Well - I would actually add more, but alas - I have a tournament to host tomorrow and need to get some preparations finalized.

Talk to ya' later,

Pika_power wrote:The main argument I hear about the INAT is that it often doesn't just rule one way or another on ambiguous rules, clarify situations or shoot down ridiculous rules such as no-eyes-no-shooting. It often completely changes the rules, or puts a rule there where it's not supposed to be.

I think you've just described every FAQ ever written for a game.


In reality, there is not a single question in the FAQ that isn't in there because it is a legitimate issue that people.

If the answer we come up with to that question is considered an unneeded rules change or 'creates a rule where its not supposed to be one' (whatever that means) to some players that is completely understandable...every person is going to have a different opinion on what the rules say or even what constitutes a change in the rules.


So what is frustrating about these people is that many of them fail to understand that if the FAQ was changed to match exactly how they felt, then there would be a whole other group of players who now felt the FAQ was changing the rules or not ruling the way they feel it should be done.

In other words, there is no magical holy grail FAQ answers that please everyone.

The only FAQ that will ever make an individual player 100% happy is one they write themselves...even GW written FAQs disappoint most players on some levels.

In other words, people who refuse to use the INAT FAQ are unlikely to use any fan-made FAQ unless they themselves write all the rulings, as anything else is always going to contain rulings they completely disagree with.

*Where there's not supposed to be one.

Implying the INAT has unnecessary rules changes.

Pika_power wrote:*Where there's not supposed to be one.

Implying the INAT has unnecessary rules changes.

A subjective opinion that people would use no matter how the INAT answers are developed or what the INAT answers state as a final ruling. It would be used as a "reason" not to use any FAQ.

Inquisitor_Malice wrote:

Pika_power wrote:*Where there's not supposed to be one.

Implying the INAT has unnecessary rules changes.

A subjective opinion that people would use no matter how the INAT answers are developed or what the INAT answers state as a final ruling. It would be used as a "reason" not to use any FAQ.

I think the inat faq would be more widely accepted if they didn't change so many rules needlessly or for the wrong reasons.

It's impossible to do that and remain credible.

It's credibility that a faq needs. Many folks won't use a faq that isn't credible. That trust is earned.

Inat hasn't earned that.

imweasel wrote:It's credibility that a faq needs. Many folks won't use a faq that isn't credible. That trust is earned.

Inat hasn't earned that.

I disagree. I fully support the INAT.

No FAQ will ever 'earn the trust' of everyone. 100% impossible. From you and your playgroup's vantage the INAT hasn't. From other is has. And still with others they take it for what it was intended - a reference, which is partial trust. And so it will go with every unofficial FAQ ever produced - just rearrange the levels of 'trust' across the myriad of regional scenes.

This a perfect example of why the INAT exists at AdeptiCon in the first place. Hundreds of people from all over (not all of them hardcore players). Scores of different rules interpretations/entrenched ways of thinking. AdeptiCon is our house, so it HAS to be our rules - just as your interpretations would apply if we were attending your tournament. Consistent rules calls published months in advance is 100% better than flying in the day of the tournament only to find something works differently here then in your playgroup. Consistent rules calls published months in advance is 100% than better winging it at an event with over 1000 individual rounds of 40K taking place over the 3 days. Consistent rules calls published months in advance is 100% better then letting a 4+ decided how the Mawloc works from round to round or having to involve an arbitrator/judge every other round because your opponent sees thing differently. All that is far more important to us then what some people will consider a handful of questionable unofficial FAQ calls. AdeptiCon isn't trying to be 'True 40K'. To assume anything even remotely exists is folly.

As Yakface says, if you believe in it start working on it. Don't expect other people to do it for you just because you think it should be done or because you are unsatisfied with some of INAT's answers.

whitedragon wrote:

imweasel wrote:It's credibility that a faq needs. Many folks won't use a faq that isn't credible. That trust is earned.

Inat hasn't earned that.

I disagree. I fully support the INAT.

I apparently have higher standards than you do.

We will have to agree to disagree.

Tough part is to even get started. How do you 1) Decide on who's on it. 2) Decidee on what needs ruling on. 3) Set up a proceedure for determing rulings when not all are in favor? .

Closed forum? Fly us all in somewhere? Update whenever a new codex appears?

Lofty idea, but tough to ever do.

imweasel wrote:

Inquisitor_Malice wrote:

Pika_power wrote:*Where there's not supposed to be one.

Implying the INAT has unnecessary rules changes.

A subjective opinion that people would use no matter how the INAT answers are developed or what the INAT answers state as a final ruling. It would be used as a "reason" not to use any FAQ.

I think the inat faq would be more widely accepted if they didn't change so many rules needlessly or for the wrong reasons.

It's impossible to do that and remain credible.

It's credibility that a faq needs. Many folks won't use a faq that isn't credible. That trust is earned.

Inat hasn't earned that.

Can you pick out a few of these "rules changes"? I've read through the INAT FAQ quite a few times and nothing really sticks out.

Also, a question for you or anyone else who feels the same way: Would you like the INAT FAQ better if they did not change the rulings, but marked [Rules Change] in every place where it currently says [Clarification]?

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Can you pick out a few of these "rules changes"? I've read through the INAT FAQ quite a few times and nothing really sticks out.

BA.27C.01, DH.18M.01, IG.54B.02, SM.88A.01, SW.37H.02, SW.56C.01, SW.60I.01, at a quick 2 min glance.

Also, a question for you or anyone else who feels the same way: Would you like the INAT FAQ better if they did not change the rulings, but marked [Rules Change] in every place where it currently says [Clarification]?

Yes, it would then at least be honest.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Can you pick out a few of these "rules changes"? I've read through the INAT FAQ quite a few times and nothing really sticks out.

Also, a question for you or anyone else who feels the same way: Would you like the INAT FAQ better if they did not change the rulings, but marked [Rules Change] in every place where it currently says [Clarification]?

The one that really bugged me, besides a million others, was when they changed how deff rollas worked and most importantly, one of the reasons on why.

Bad. Very bad.

I agree that DH.18M.01, SM.88A,01 are rules changes
SW.37H.02 is just weird - it's definitely a rules change but I'm not sure what contention the ruling is answering.

BA.27C.01 isn't really a rules change per say. It's true that the missing from the terrible BA PDF, but they didn't deviate from how anyone actually played it.

IG.54B.02 is based on the Eldar GW FAQ's Tempest Launcher ruling. I know how you feel about GW FAQs, but as the INAT FAQ is based on them being taken as true rules, this wouldn't be a rules change.

SW.60I.01 is probably a situation where you and the INAT council disagree on what the RAW actually is. I'm guessing you believe that The High King is an ability of the players, and the INAT council believes that it is Logan's ability.

Yakface, have you and your team considered changing the way you classify your ruling? It might alleviate some of the flak you receive in exchange for not a lot of effort.

imweasel wrote:The one that really bugged me, besides a million others, was when they changed how deff rollas worked and most importantly, one of the reasons on why.

Bad. Very bad.

The flip and explaination on why is probably due to a slight shift in a very split vote after the community's reaction to the initial ruling. Personally, I would argue that the current ruling is not a rules change (do not try and debate why it is a rules change, this thread is dumb enough already without Deffrollas). Even if that ruling was reversed, there would be an equal amount of flak sent in from the anti-Deffrolla crowd - there is no way to answer that question and have everyone be happy.

The one that really bugged me, besides a million others, was when they changed how deff rollas worked and most importantly, one of the reasons on why.

May I ask what reason you are referencing here? Was it the fact that the UK GT FAQ had called it that way, and we aligned our ruling to match given the GW Orc FAQ was pending? Or the fact that we personally heard it from the author of the codex, at AdeptiCon in conjunction with his attendance that year? Which one is the issue?

Unfortunatly the only thing we have is the ineffectivly small GW one and the INAT Faq. I only use the gw one because the INAT has so many bad rulings I wanna barf its as if they don't use common sense meh. So I stick to gw FAQ and using my head alittle trust me that will bring you to the best anwser more times than some gak FAQ

imweasel wrote:

whitedragon wrote:

imweasel wrote:It's credibility that a faq needs. Many folks won't use a faq that isn't credible. That trust is earned.

Inat hasn't earned that.

I disagree. I fully support the INAT.

I apparently have higher standards than you do.

We will have to agree to disagree.

An example of 'higher standards' is being able to disagree with someone without stooping to claiming they are inferior because they disagree with you.

mikhaila wrote:An example of 'higher standards' is being able to disagree with someone without stooping to claiming they are inferior because they disagree with you.

Ok. I will clarify my statement.

I just have higher standards for a 'standardized' faq than you do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

muwhe wrote:May I ask what reason you are referencing here? Was it the fact that the UK GT FAQ had called it that way, and we aligned our ruling to match given the GW Orc FAQ was pending? Or the fact that we personally heard it from the author of the codex, at AdeptiCon in conjunction with his attendance that year? Which one is the issue?

All the above and then some. It would be nice to see some consistency in the inat faq, instead of the flip flopping that goes on.

Change something in the inat faq due to gw changing a faq? Sure.

Changing something because they 'might'? No way in hell.

If further published information from gw (and not more fan based stuff) comes out, then of course change it based on that information.

Grow a pair, make rulings and stand by them.