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 are having some what of a dispute in my local gaming community as to how widely used the INAT FAQ's are. I have a somewhat optimistic view of the FAQ's and have been trying to convince some of the local tourney's to adopt them as the "best thing we have to settle disputes."

There are some that believe though, that the INAT FAQ's are not widely used at all, and that the majority of the community in North America do not use these in tournaments.

Please answer accordingly.

There are 2 FLGS in my area. The one I frequent does not use the INAT, the one I do not go to does not either from what I have heard. People are just more comfortable with material straight from GW.

The Rules as written arguament vs rules as intended is fierce enough without daring add non gw material into the mix.

our store uses common sense, it's odd I know. The owner and I get into debates about what can do what and how/why.

We tend to use it as a more consistent version of dicing off. I mean, if we really can't agree, somebody will look it up and simply use it. It's not an official policy or anything, but this way anybody that comes around knows what rules we play by.

We use it as a fall back.
However, it rarely comes up as we discuss the rules a lot and work out just about everything long before we hit the table.

The gaming group I currently most often hang out with is very much more laid back and non-cut throat about competition. As such, rules disputes very rarely get to the point that something as comprehensive as the INAT is needed. Personally, I don't have any problem with the INAT, and it wouldn't bother me if we adopted it. As long as I know what the rules are going to be before I start playing, it's all good.

I want to keep this thing bumped as to get more responses. Thank you for your time in looking at this poll.

I'm a little puzzled as to why it matters. If you like them, use them. If you don't, don't.

I'm not really seeing how someone in a different state using them or not should have any effect on how your community plays the game.

Have to agree with Insaniak. We don't use them based on the fact we think that the rules and FAQ make things clear enough. You should use or not use them based on the same criteria. Don't say everyone else uses it or 67% use it so we should as well.

It can matter if you plan on travelling to other events. Walking into a new store and finding that they play under different rules is never fun, and if a lot of people play with the INAT it's at least one way to make sure that you dont' have the problem.

kirsanth wrote:We use it as a fall back.
However, it rarely comes up as we discuss the rules a lot and work out just about everything long before we hit the table.

In a nutshell, this. If there's something that we disagree on during the game, we either have a roll-off or ask a non-playing person who's present, and then check the web for the "answer"* after we're done.


*And as we all know, there's not always an answer, but I guess that in itself is an answer?

I think it matters. I have travelled through Texas to different tournaments, and so far 2 out of the major 3 tournaments used the INAT. The one that did not, had the most complaints about cronyism, and other assorted mischief. This may be true, it may be perception, but I can at least say that going into the 2 tourney's that were using INAT, every player knew exactly what to expect. There are much less confusion.

The poll is going about like I thought it would, split all over the place. What concerns me the most though is the 20% that have no way to settle disputes except by rolling dice. I mean, if you are paying money for a tournament, I want something more.

gannam wrote:I think it matters. I have travelled through Texas to different tournaments, and so far 2 out of the major 3 tournaments used the INAT. The one that did not, had the most complaints about cronyism, and other assorted mischief. This may be true, it may be perception, but I can at least say that going into the 2 tourney's that were using INAT, every player knew exactly what to expect. There are much less confusion.

Sure... but again, how does whether or not other tournaments use it affect whether or not you do?

Travelling players aren't a problem. You just make sure your tournament rules package includes a statement that the INAT is in use (prefereably with a copy of it, or a link to obtain it).

What concerns me the most though is the 20% that have no way to settle disputes except by rolling dice. I mean, if you are paying money for a tournament, I want something more.

It really depends on the event. A lot of FLGS-run 'tournaments' are really little different to any other day's gaming... just in structured rounds.

gannam wrote:I think it matters. I have travelled through Texas to different tournaments, and so far 2 out of the major 3 tournaments used the INAT. The one that did not, had the most complaints about cronyism, and other assorted mischief. This may be true, it may be perception, but I can at least say that going into the 2 tourney's that were using INAT, every player knew exactly what to expect. There are much less confusion.

The poll is going about like I thought it would, split all over the place. What concerns me the most though is the 20% that have no way to settle disputes except by rolling dice. I mean, if you are paying money for a tournament, I want something more.

You're assuming "local gaming community" means competitive, WAAC, tournaments.

For many of us, our "local gaming community" is a group of friends who have been playing together for years and years. If you're friends with your opponent, discussing rules disputes can actually be accomplished with discussion and not argument.

Besides, sometimes you need to allow something not strictly RAW because it makes sense.

We use "our own" version of the INAT FAQ...meaning we use the INAT FAQ as a foundation but change/alter any rulings that we disagree with. The INAT FAQ covers a lot of questions we never considered before and helps to have us look at rulings with a fresh perspective for our own house rules and/or interpretations. We also go with using the GW FAQs as well...it's official enough for us.

So since there isn't a choice for "We use have our own house rules and also use the GW FAQ", I didn't vote.

triplare wrote:We use "our own" version of the INAT FAQ...meaning we use the INAT FAQ as a foundation but change/alter any rulings that we disagree with. The INAT FAQ covers a lot of questions we never considered before and helps to have us look at rulings with a fresh perspective for our own house rules and/or interpretations. We also go with using the GW FAQs as well...it's official enough for us.

So since there isn't a choice for "We use have our own house rules and also use the GW FAQ", I didn't vote.

I think you bring up a very interesting point. I am assuming you are talking about your local comic shop, if its you and friends then the following won't make much sense to you.

If your local gaming store that picks and chooses what INAT rules to follow holds a tournament that brings someone new to the table, do you not feel that it would better serve the community as whole to take the entire FAQ's, or at the very least, release in advance of the tournament where you differ from the INAT FAQ's.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I am bumping this again, as I really want to get 100 votes. That way, we have family feud style numbers.

[quote=gannam... or at the very least, release in advance of the tournament where you differ from the INAT FAQ's.

If the results of INAT are beneficial to my opponent, they use it. If they are beneficial to me, they will say we can't use it. Sometimes, the people who run events at my local store is jerks.

gannam wrote:I think you bring up a very interesting point. I am assuming you are talking about your local comic shop, if its you and friends then the following won't make much sense to you.

If your local gaming store that picks and chooses what INAT rules to follow holds a tournament that brings someone new to the table, do you not feel that it would better serve the community as whole to take the entire FAQ's, or at the very least, release in advance of the tournament where you differ from the INAT FAQ's.

My ' local community gaming group' are 6+ players that meet in my garage (so no, it's not a LGS). That said, we actively try to have our 'INAT variant FAQ' updated and posted for any who wish to game here. Everyone who plays here has access to the FAQ (online and in print) and has a say in whatever changes we make to the current INAT FAQ (discuss, vote, etc.). Any new players that show up are first shown the FAQ so there aren't any surprises awaiting them. We currently have a pretty good balance or Imperium and Xenos armies which minimizes bias towards one faction or the other, and so far it's worked out pretty well for us. We've had a few tournaments with new players showing up and haven't had any problems since they get familiar with the house rules before any dice are rolled.

I understand that using the INAT FAQ as-is is a great basic foundation for players attending regular tournaments, and I support the idea of using that comprehensive document in more tournaments than just Adepticon. I like the though of 'everyone being on the same page'. I'll gladly play by any rules a tournament wants, but I'd certainly feel better knowing they had something as comprehensive as the INAT FAQ at their disposal.

At my store, no one ever really argues anything about rules. We look it up, and go with what is best for the game at hand.

If all else fails, we just roll a D6.

Simple.

I am going to keep bumping this until I get 100 responses. Thanks so far to everyone that participated.

I figure the day I need to use a FAQ that has as many (if not more) pages as the rules section of the BRB I'm going to quit the hobby.

There are 3 major gaming groups in my area. Two of them use the INAT ours doesn't. I've never heard of anyone leaving one of my RTTs (which always fill to max with entries) stating he got hosed on a ruling I made.

EDIT: Maybe it is me but what is the difference between option #2 and #3?

Some people will only use the Errata, and ignore the FAQ's because of GW's little footnote about the FAQ's being house rules, and the Errata being actual corrections to the book.

I knew that crowd was out there so I broke it out to 2 separate choices. (perhaps poorly worded on my part.)

I know that the INAT FAQ is long. The only reason its so big though is because it attempts to encapsulate the FAQ's for every army. The actual core rule book stuff is only 20 pages. the remaining 95 are army specific. The only reason that the Rule book FAQ is 20 pages is because they have loads of illustrations. (some of which are more helpful than the actual rule book).

I don't mean to carry around the INAT banner so vehemently, but if you look at page 10 of the INAT FAQ on falling back, if does a much better job of explaining a core rule mechanic than the actual rule book does. (page 45 of the BRB).

I know that the real answer to this is for GW to have a living breathing rules system like some other miniature companies out there and post the rules online. Then, if they decide to change or clarify something for balance purposes, or for clarification then the entire community could respond.

We all know that GW won't do that because the web is an after thought to them.

gannam wrote:I am going to keep bumping this until I get 100 responses. Thanks so far to everyone that participated.

I would remind you then that content-less bumping is against forum rules. If people are interested enough to vote, they will. Leave it at that.

DakkaDakka wrote: