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.

Should I allow opponents to use FAQs written by yakface/innercirclegaming, or only the GW ones? There are some differences between the two types, some minor, others direct contradictions. Until now recently Ive used the innercirclegaming/yakface ones, until i discovered their are official GW ones on the GW site. Also do tournaments use these FAQs? And if so which version?

Almost all tournaments will use the rulings in the GW FAQs. In general, the INAT FAQ and similar are there to answer questions NOT put forward in the GW FAQs, to kind of fill in the blanks to the other unanswered questions. SOME tournaments (including some major ones) do use the INAT, but not all. In your friendly games you can really do whatever you like, but I've always used the GW FAQs only. Around here at least, nobody uses anything else.

Most events use GW and then have event FAQs for issues GW hasn't chimed in on or are ambiguous about (like how to handle craters for vehicles and to remove your deffrollas for gameplay)

INAT is a good event FAQ or at least a place to start from to fill in the gaps of the GW FAQs.

I think the INAT is consistent with the GW FAQs? Since the do not conflict with one another, I do not see an issue using both, unless you have local house rules to deal with some of the situations the GW one does not cover.

The main reason that I love the INAT is that if everyone uses it then everyone will be playing the same rules. The INAT is the most comprehensive and most fair IMHO as well, as they give a brief reason WHY they ruled a particular way in the FAQ, plus they were the first to truely market themselves as a living document for the benefit of the community.

Before the INAT, I can personally attest to a lot more 'rules regionalism' in the game, as the chicago crew may have played something different than the NY crew that plays things differently than the california crew.

I actually think that tournies that choose not to adopt the INAT in favor of their own FAQ hurt the community by reintroducing 'rules regionalism' for zero benefit whatsoever--realisticly how a rule is played/percieved is of less importance than 2 strangers KNOWING how it will be played should they be matched up.

I would have to disagree with the above unfortunately. I find the INAT to be a complete and utter piece of junk. Personally I wouldn't play against someone using the INAT.

Nungunz wrote:I would have to disagree with the above unfortunately. I find the INAT to be a complete and utter piece of junk. Personally I wouldn't play against someone using the INAT.

I can see disagreeing with it, but that's a bit strong. I can't imagine how many people I've played who have had different interpretations of rules than I do and it worked out fine, even when they came up in game.

Many people here refuse to play by INAT, due to it not being in German. So no point in using it for me.

Nungunz, what in particular is 'junk?' Or do you simply dislike it because it is too large, which is a fair complaint if you dont have the ability to bring the internet with you when you game.

Pretre, while yes you and your opponent can have a difference of opinion arise in the middle of a game and still resolve it without incident, if the issue is one covered by the INAT then you can know BEFORE the issue is raised how it will be answered. That is the great thing about the INAT. You and your opponent are of course free to play anything you want, but if you play by INAT rulings, and then move 500 miles away, if your new store plays by INAT rulings, you can get right back into the game you love.

Cruzer_92 wrote:Should I allow opponents to use FAQs written by yakface/innercirclegaming, or only the GW ones? There are some differences between the two types, some minor, others direct contradictions. Until now recently Ive used the innercirclegaming/yakface ones, until i discovered their are official GW ones on the GW site. Also do tournaments use these FAQs? And if so which version?

From yak's postings on the matter, they do change the INAT to match the GW faqs as they are updated. If you see a difference in rulings between them, it's generally because a GW faq has been released and the INAT hasn't been updated yet. What specific contradictions do you find?

Cruzer_92 wrote:Should I allow opponents to use FAQs written by yakface/innercirclegaming, or only the GW ones? There are some differences between the two types, some minor, others direct contradictions. Until now recently Ive used the innercirclegaming/yakface ones, until i discovered their are official GW ones on the GW site. Also do tournaments use these FAQs? And if so which version?

You have every right to refuse to play someone if they want to use the INAT FAQ. For that matter, you have every right to refuse to play against Space Marines, or any army painted with the colour purple, if that floats your boat. Never let anyone tell you what you should and shouldn't accept.

If I was in your situation, I'd read the INAT FAQ and decide for myself whether it's worth using. If in doubt, ask your opponents why they want to use the INAT FAQ and ask them how it'd affect your army or the way you play. As with any "unofficial" rules source, they are the ones who are obligated to make sure you're comfortable with using them.

Cruzer_92 wrote:Should I allow opponents to use FAQs written by yakface/innercirclegaming, or only the GW ones? There are some differences between the two types, some minor, others direct contradictions. Until now recently Ive used the innercirclegaming/yakface ones, until i discovered their are official GW ones on the GW site. Also do tournaments use these FAQs? And if so which version?

There are no conflicts between the INAT and the GW FAQs, except occasionally when GW updates their FAQs and the INAT hasn't been updated yet. The INAT is designed to be a supplement to the GW FAQs and specifically rules only on things not covered in them. It says right up front (IIRC) that if there's a conflict between it and the GW FAQs (in that update lag) that GW takes precedence.

In my experience you can play using just the GW FAQs, and they do cover quite a bit. However you will occasionally run into stuff they don't, and for that you need to either come up with local solutions with your friends, or use an independent third party FAQ. Those third party FAQs hopefully have the benefits of being objective and carefully-considered. The INAT, IMO, is the best I've seen. It's exhaustive and comprehensively debated and developed, it's incredibly well-written, consistent, and clear, and it's designed to be easily-referenced.

DevianID wrote:INAT is the most comprehensive

I actually found the GW s to hold more FAQs and mostdefniely more erratas and amendments...

Cruzer, obviously no independent FAQ can contain errata, as they're not publishing the books.

And since the INAT is a supplement to the GW FAQs, only used IN ADDITION to them, of course it's more comprehensive. It's just there to add more answers on top of the ones GW provides.

DevianID wrote:Pretre, while yes you and your opponent can have a difference of opinion arise in the middle of a game and still resolve it without incident, if the issue is one covered by the INAT then you can know BEFORE the issue is raised how it will be answered. That is the great thing about the INAT. You and your opponent are of course free to play anything you want, but if you play by INAT rulings, and then move 500 miles away, if your new store plays by INAT rulings, you can get right back into the game you love.

Right. I was saying that having a disagreement over rules is no reason to be so antagonistic. Basically, INAT is rules. Nuns was being a bit OTT.

Well, INAT is rules if you (or your tournament or league) choose(s) to use it. It's obviously an unofficial and optional supplement. I think it's really useful and well-done, but YMMV.

Mannahnin wrote:Well, INAT is rules if you (or your tournament or league) choose(s) to use it. It's obviously an unofficial and optional supplement. I think it's really useful and well-done, but YMMV.

I didn't mean to say it was 'official' rules, just that if you disagree that strongly with another player over the fact that they use an optional FAQ (as Nuns does) you probably would disagree with them over some small point in the game as well.

pretre wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Well, INAT is rules if you (or your tournament or league) choose(s) to use it. It's obviously an unofficial and optional supplement. I think it's really useful and well-done, but YMMV.

I didn't mean to say it was 'official' rules, just that if you disagree that strongly with another player over the fact that they use an optional FAQ (as Nuns does) you probably would disagree with them over some small point in the game as well.

Yeah, if someone is going to be so bent out of shape over an FAQ or even a ruling, the game would probably break down half way through anyways.

INAT must not be that much of 'junk' as a large part of GW's FAQs are word from work INAT and have even referenced YAKFACE and crew directly in the GW FAQs for their work. If INAT 'gets it wrong' it is usually because INAT was following RAW and GW was unclear in their intentions and basically 'correct' things with an FAQ which clarify 'what they meant' not 'what they wrote'. The two work well together.

Speaking of INAT - INAT followers have already accepted a precedent for FNP ignoring ES, Hexrifle, etc.

Acid blood triggers when a model suffers an unsaved wound.

TYR.84A.04--Q: If a model suffers more unsaved wounds than it has Wounds left on its profile, do these 'extra' wounds cause Acid Blood attacks back on the enemy?
A: No, the Acid Blood rule only applies to Wounds the creature actually suffers. Wounds in excess of what the creature actually has, and those negated by 'Feel No Pain', do not benefit from Acid Blood [clarification].

So if the key word for ES, Hexrifle, etc. is suffers an unsaved wound, the INAT FAQ clarifies that Feel No Pain means that the model doesn't suffer an unsaved wound hence FNP ignores ES and Hexrifles, among other things.

nkelsch wrote:

pretre wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Well, INAT is rules if you (or your tournament or league) choose(s) to use it. It's obviously an unofficial and optional supplement. I think it's really useful and well-done, but YMMV.

I didn't mean to say it was 'official' rules, just that if you disagree that strongly with another player over the fact that they use an optional FAQ (as Nuns does) you probably would disagree with them over some small point in the game as well.

Yeah, if someone is going to be so bent out of shape over an FAQ or even a ruling, the game would probably break down half way through anyways.

INAT must not be that much of 'junk' as a large part of GW's FAQs are word from work INAT and have even referenced YAKFACE and crew directly in the GW FAQs for their work. If INAT 'gets it wrong' it is usually because INAT was following RAW and GW was unclear in their intentions and basically 'correct' things with an FAQ which clarify 'what they meant' not 'what they wrote'. The two work well together.

That's a harsh generalization. A bunch of rules can go both ways and INAT pretty much just picks one. In a bunch of cases they picked the one I think are stupid, so I'm going to cause a fuss in games because I disagree with them? Especially thing labled [Rules Change] aren't exactly often in line with how people in my area play them - not just due to "lost in translation".

Rigeld, I am confused. What was your point with ES and hexrifles? I didnt see that in the OP, and you dont really expand on ES or Hexrifles execpt when saying they are the same as acid blood?

DevianID wrote:Rigeld, I am confused. What was your point with ES and hexrifles? I didnt see that in the OP, and you dont really expand on ES or Hexrifles execpt when saying they are the same as acid blood?

It wasn't in the OP - just something I noticed in the INAT FAQ.

The ES/Hexrifle vs FNP debate is pretty hotly debated on these forums. (Does a successful FNP roll negate Entropic Strike/the ID effect of Hexrifle) I'll break it out into a new thread in a bit.