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.

Hi Guys,

I'm going to be judging at a Tournament next weekend, The Railhead Rumble, and was wondering what common rules questions I can preemptively research and answer so I can keep games moving fast and make sure I'm making the fair call. So if you've run across some common questions that are not already FAQ'ed by GW please feel free to list them here and I'll get working on it.

Thanks!

There's always the INAT FAQ? It has a lot of very dodgy rulings in it though. But there's no reason you couldn't modify it yourself.

Yeah, get the INAT FAQ, it's in a sticky in this very forum.

If you tell your players that you are going to use it, they can even prepare for that.

I would highly advise that you do not use the INAT. It's an utter piece of fanboi-made crap.

For this event we will not be using INAT, we will be using the GW FAQs, with rulings made by me and the other judges.

I'm not a huge fan of INAT, I'm much more familiar with GW ones, and INAT is meant to replace the GW ones. So I don't want to pick and choose between two answers to the same question that can be different. Then there's just the fact that some INAT rulings make my brain hurt just like some of the GW ones.

coolkidroc wrote:For this event we will not be using INAT, we will be using the GW FAQs, with rulings made by me and the other judges.

I'm not a huge fan of INAT, I'm much more familiar with GW ones, and INAT is meant to replace the GW ones. So I don't want to pick and choose between two answers to the same question that can be different. Then there's just the fact that some INAT rulings make my brain hurt just like some of the GW ones.

INAT isn't made to replace the GW FAQs - it's made to supplement them. I'm not aware of many/any places they directly contradict.

edit: From the INAT FAQ page:

It isn’t meant to replace the Games Workshop official FAQs in any way, and in fact the issues addressed by the GW FAQs aren’t included in the document.

Just for clarifications sake.

My appolgies, I was misinformed then. I'd not read all 110 pages of it

coolkidroc wrote:My appolgies, I was misinformed then. I'd not read all 110 pages of it

It's on the first page before even downloading the PDF
http://www.dakkadakka.com/core/inat_faq.jsp

Which I think speaks to why many are so vocal about their hate of INAT. They've never actually read it or if they have they've only looked up a few questions on their chosen army and decided the whole thing is a conspiracy based on getting answers they didn't like.

I don't care what any individual INAT answer is to any particular question. It's value is that it provides common ground at a tournament for players coming from diverse gaming environments and helps head off rules disputes that could disrupt a tournament.

Yeah, but how many times have you read the first page in a codex

That's usually the stuff that doesn't matter. But anyways, I've skimmed through it in the past. Like I said earlier, there are some I agree with, and others that make my brain hurt.

coolkidroc wrote:Yeah, but how many times have you read the first page in a codex

That's usually the stuff that doesn't matter. But anyways, I've skimmed through it in the past. Like I said earlier, there are some I agree with, and others that make my brain hurt.

While that may be true, many of the rules that GW writes do the same, to the point that I want to pull my hair out and scream over the inconsistancy. One of the benefits of using a pre-written ruleset (including the INAT FAQ) is that everyone can be on the same page regardless of where they are coming from. Even if you don't agree on the rulings, they are in place.

Additionally, if you disagree with specifi rulings, you can always make a list of exceptions building on their original document and provide it to the players either at registration or day-of.

coolkidroc wrote:
I'm not a huge fan of INAT, I'm much more familiar with GW ones, and INAT is meant to replace the GW ones.

Ummm, while not a huge fan of INAT, I will point out that this is incorrect. First page of INAT:

In the case that any official GW FAQs are released or updated after this publication date, and they contain rulings that
contradict those found in this document, the official GW ruling obviously takes precedence.

Edit: Ooops, missed that this has already been mentioned. Sorry for the duplicate.

The INAT is a great read even if you don't decide to adopt it entirely. One area in particular is how weapons are mounted. GW's omission in most of the newer codex's on how weapons are mounted (hull, turret, pint ect..) leaves a huge hole in the rules that's rife for abuse.

I think if you don't want to adopt something like the INAT, you're better off not getting too specific. Simply have all the GW faq's on hand the day of so that you can make the best calls possible. It's also a good idea to encourage players to print GW faq's and bring them along with them if they feel they may clear up issue that relate to their army. I've seen players go so far as to highlight certain sections of an FAQ to help keep rules discussions/disputes as quick as possible.

Here's the rules for an upcomming tournament that sallieman and myself will be hosting. We kept it pretty short and only made up 1 rule as there will likely be a good amount of flimmers (skimmer on large oval flying bases) at the tournament.

"Tournament Rules

Terrain: Before each round you will be given 5 minutes on top of game length to discuss and define each terrain piece with your opponent. This is very important as it will affect where objectives can or cannot be placed, how models interact with the board etc. Some of our custom terrain pieces are very large and detailed and would be difficult to define as solely one type of terrain. It’s worth noting that ruins have 4 pages of rules and both parties should be on the same page as to how they will be played (climbing, melting through walls etc). .


Objectives size: 40mm. We will be providing the objective markers in the form of poker chips. If you wish to bring your own objectives on 40mm bases feel free, however your opponent will have veto power of their use. We find poker chips work well due to their bright colors and their low profile.


Objectives in 3D environments: Objectives are considered held if a troop choice is within 3 inches of the objective marker. This may be measured spherically. What this means is an objective may be held or contested by models higher or lower than it. The measurement can be made from the base or head of a model and for vehicles any part of the hull.

Note: Your pre game discussion about terrain should also include where objectives can or cannot be placed. The only restriction on placement in the BBB is impassable terrain, however some of our terrain features are very large and that may prove too restrictive so we leave that decision up to you and your opponent.

The most important rule: If a rule issue or question arises during the course of the game feel free to contact a tournament organizer. If the rule has a simple solution we will go with that, however if the issue is grey and not yet solved by errata or FAQ we will simply advise players to roll off.

Note: If the issue is terrain related, tournament organizers will ask you how you and your opponent defined said terrain piece. If the issue omission of rules (neither of you discussed it, both had different assumptions) we will forced to make you roll off and the terrain piece will be played as such for the rest of the game.


Vehicles explosions: We will not be using craters. Feel free to use dice or other markers to mark the outline of the hull. The dice or counter outline counts as a crater (4+ cover, area terrain).

Note: Skimmers with larger oval flying bases may not use their hull as the outline of the crater; they must instead use their oval base. "

coolkidroc wrote:Hi Guys,

I'm going to be judging at a Tournament next weekend, The Railhead Rumble, and was wondering what common rules questions I can preemptively research and answer so I can keep games moving fast and make sure I'm making the fair call. So if you've run across some common questions that are not already FAQ'ed by GW please feel free to list them here and I'll get working on it.

Thanks!

Even if you don't want to use the INAT FAQ as written, it's still the most comprehensive source of QUESTIONS available. Go through, find the questions you want to answer, answer them how you choose, and move on. It's only as long as it is because of the cross-referencing and question repetition (e.g., answering the same question about Stormravens in every SM codex that includes them, for ease of lookup).

*Edit: also, moving to Tournament Discussions, where you are more likely to get relevant responses.

the deal with the INAT is it's pretty good as far as it goes. But it's by no means exhaustive, and the *worst* arguments it doesn't address. (Probably b/c there's no real clear answer.) It's actually quite conservative.

Randall Turner wrote:the deal with the INAT is it's pretty good as far as it goes. But it's by no means exhaustive, and the *worst* arguments it doesn't address. (Probably b/c there's no real clear answer.) It's actually quite conservative.

Then give him a list!

Welp, start with the one for the Ambassadorial I suppose - but this won't get any attention over here, all us asshats that argue rules are in the YMDC forum.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/442612.page

Edit: it's key to know whether the starting point is INAT or not.

I'd say look at any YMDC post that's 2-3+ pages long. Heck, reading the title alone will probably reveal the source of the controversy.

As myself and others have indicated, dismissing the INAT out of hand is a poor idea even if you disagree with it's rulings. It's good for what it is.

coolkidroc wrote:Yeah, but how many times have you read the first page in a codex That's usually the stuff that doesn't matter.

If you don't enjoy reading a whole rulebook, you may not be cut out to be a rules judge.

coolkidroc wrote: But anyways, I've skimmed through it in the past. Like I said earlier, there are some I agree with, and others that make my brain hurt.

It's quite literally the best and most comprehensive FAQ in the world. A crapload of work has been put into researching, debating, and phrasing the questions and answers. Never mind all the excellent and well-designed diagrams to illustrate issues with LOS and movement.

Everyone disagrees with at least SOME of its rulings. Even the guys on the INAT FAQ council. That's the nature of the 40k rules. Anyone who thinks that any two people can 100% agree on every ambiguous question in the 40k rules is fooling themself. The point is that it's a bunch of carefully considered questions and rulings, which supplement and never contradict the GW FAQs. If you disagree with some of the answers, you are perfectly free to use the INAT as the basis for your own FAQ. That's another thing that's right at the beginning if you bother to read it.

Mannahnin wrote:Everyone disagrees with at least SOME of its rulings. Even the guys on the INAT FAQ council. That's the nature of the 40k rules. Anyone who thinks that any two people can 100% agree on every ambiguous question in the 40k rules is fooling themself. The point is that it's a bunch of carefully considered questions and rulings, which supplement and never contradict the GW FAQs. If you disagree with some of the answers, you are perfectly free to use the INAT as the basis for your own FAQ. That's another thing that's right at the beginning if you bother to read it.

Ahem, Necron Royal Courts would like to have a word with you....

INAT pg 68 wrote:◊NEC.29B.04 – Q: If a Necron model with ‘Ever-Living’ is part of a unit that is wiped out by a sweeping advance or is killed failing to stop a vehicle with a ‘Death or Glory! attack’, can it still return to play via its ‘Reanimation Protocols’?

A: No in both cases [clarification].

GW Necron FAQ 2.0 pg1 wrote:Q: If an entire unit, including an attached character from a Royal Court, is wiped out, do you get to make any Reanimation Protocol rolls? (p29)

A: You would only get to make one roll for the attached character as he has the Ever-living special rule. Note that in this case, he must be placed within 3" of the counter as his unit has been wiped out.

Sure does look pretty contrary to me.

Technically a different situation, and also one of the INAT FAQ's that's NOT conservative, ie, it goes out on a limb there. (And yeah, I disagree - and yeah, you'll get an argument if this is in YMDC.)

Zathras wrote:Ahem, Necron Royal Courts would like to have a word with you....

INAT pg 68 wrote:◊NEC.29B.04 – Q: If a Necron model with ‘Ever-Living’ is part of a unit that is wiped out by a sweeping advance or is killed failing to stop a vehicle with a ‘Death or Glory! attack’, can it still return to play via its ‘Reanimation Protocols’?

A: No in both cases [clarification].

GW Necron FAQ 2.0 pg1 wrote:Q: If an entire unit, including an attached character from a Royal Court, is wiped out, do you get to make any Reanimation Protocol rolls? (p29)

A: You would only get to make one roll for the attached character as he has the Ever-living special rule. Note that in this case, he must be placed within 3" of the counter as his unit has been wiped out.

Sure does look pretty contrary to me.

I disagree. The GW ruling is a general answer; the INAT one is discussing two situations that the rules require specific exceptions to overrule.

But we're wandering off-topic. This is not the place to discuss specific rulings.

Janthkin wrote:I disagree. The GW ruling is a general answer; the INAT one is discussing two situations that the rules require specific exceptions to overrule.

But we're wandering off-topic. This is not the place to discuss specific rulings.

And to be clear, I disagree with INAT, and your interpretation, and can support that position *well* - but I still agree INAT is a good starting point.

If this isn't the place to discuss specific rulings, I really don't think moving this thread out of YMDC was helpful. The only reason I posted here was that I'd already typed in a response while the thread was in YMDC. I think you can limit detail discussion (if you feel that's absolutely necessary) and still help the guy find his ambiguous rules by keeping the discussion in the forum where people who like to debate rules lurk.

Zathras wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Everyone disagrees with at least SOME of its rulings. Even the guys on the INAT FAQ council. That's the nature of the 40k rules. Anyone who thinks that any two people can 100% agree on every ambiguous question in the 40k rules is fooling themself. The point is that it's a bunch of carefully considered questions and rulings, which supplement and never contradict the GW FAQs. If you disagree with some of the answers, you are perfectly free to use the INAT as the basis for your own FAQ. That's another thing that's right at the beginning if you bother to read it.

Ahem, Necron Royal Courts would like to have a word with you....

INAT pg 68 wrote:◊NEC.29B.04 – Q: If a Necron model with ‘Ever-Living’ is part of a unit that is wiped out by a sweeping advance or is killed failing to stop a vehicle with a ‘Death or Glory! attack’, can it still return to play via its ‘Reanimation Protocols’?

A: No in both cases [clarification].

GW Necron FAQ 2.0 pg1 wrote:Q: If an entire unit, including an attached character from a Royal Court, is wiped out, do you get to make any Reanimation Protocol rolls? (p29)

A: You would only get to make one roll for the attached character as he has the Ever-living special rule. Note that in this case, he must be placed within 3" of the counter as his unit has been wiped out.

Sure does look pretty contrary to me.

They aren't contrary.

rigeld2 wrote:They aren't contrary.

<sigh> okay, that's less than useful. The guy needs background.

Kid rock, here's the deal on Sweeping Advance and Everliving. The disagreement hinges on the phrase "removed from play as a casualty" in the Resurrection Protocol special rule, ie, if a model is removed from play as a casualty, it can roll to come back. There's a school of thought that GW meant to differentiate between "Remove from Play" and "Remove from Play as a Casualty", and that models who suffered the first wouldn't benefit from a RP roll. Then, in the wording of Sweeping Advance it states that the unit is comprehensively destroyed and *removed*, which is arguably equated to "Removed from Play" but NOT as a casualty, so they wouldn't get their RP roll. This is further reinforced by the wording of Sweeping Advance which emphasizes that "unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage..." The argument then is that to override sweeping advance any special rule that potentially might do so MUST explicitly mention that it counteracts sweeping advance.

Some proponents of "no roll allowed" base their argument on RFP/RFPaaC, some on the "exception must be explicit" position, many on both.

Here's a 30 page furball about it, NOT dakka's finest moment.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/425505.page

Now, here's my partisan view of this interpretation: There's no doubt that GW leaves a lot of things up in the air due to ambiguous rule wording. There's a tendency by Dakka veterans to therefore discount GW verbiage as inherently undependable. They look askance at ANY rule or FAQ from GW that goes against a framework of convention that they've built up to resolve ambiguities. Generally it serves them (and us, as users of INAT) well - there's a logical consistency to their interpretations because it's based on a philosophical framework. However, given a choice between an intepretation that fits convention and another that might fit BRB/FAQ wording closer, if it's not clear-cut they'll sometimes choose the "convention" interpretation because it avoids other potential problems. In my experience this is usually the source of the "they're changing the game" complaints. But, which ones are valid complaints?

The problem you have is that you're going to be swamped, dude. Can you take the time to go through every rules debate? I'm not saying you're not capable, an intelligent reader can understand the issues well enough. But each one requires a breadth of knowledge (NOT intelligence, raw facts) often spread out among the various codices and FAQ's and often not immediately obvious as pertinent. I'd say INAT doesn't make any really bad decisions (this imo is one of the worst, and is still supportable) and covers a huge swath of verbiage, condensing it into something usable. If I were you, I'd start there and for specific questions, post on YMDC - it's quiet in there now, we're all like, "ah, hell, why argue about rules that're getting tossed in two months anyway?" HTH

Edit: aw, dammit, yakface bottom posted while I was working for a living. To be clear on "one of the worst [decisions], and still supportable": I don't believe GW meant to differentiate between RFP and RFPaaC, and discount that argument. (For a lot of detail reasons.) However, the "must be explicit" argument for overriding Sweeping Advance has merit. My view on that is the general litmus applied is too strict - it's probably unrealistic to expect GW to go back and call out each rule a special rule tangentially interacts with. The problem here is that in one case, they did so - And They Shall Know No Fear specifically states it overrides Sweeping Advance. You *could* therefore infer that any rule overriding Sweeping Advance must explicitly call out Sweeping Advance - but it's important to realize that ATSKNF dealt with regrouping rules, ie, was closely related to Sweeping Advance and changed the unit's behavior when caught up in one. For most units their behavior when caught up in Sweeping Advance is clear - they die dead. In my opinion, at that point the SA rule is satisfied, done and over. And another rule, like EL, can take effect without contradicting SA. And that, in a nutshell, is the opposing view.

First off:

The notion that there ever could be a FAQ that people wouldn't say has 'dodgy' rulings in it, is a fictitious concept right up there with the loch-ness monster and yetis. The simple fact that these are frequently asked questions is because people as a whole do not agree on what the answer should be. That means no matter how you rule on a particular question there are people thinking you should be sticking to their interpretation of what the 'RAW' means in that case, then there are other people who have an entirely different interpretation of what the 'RAW' says in that same instance and then you have other people who think that a FAQ should take 'common sense' into consideration, etc, etc, etc.

Therefore there can never and will never be a FAQ that people agree on as having perfect rulings. The only time that will happen is if you have a FAQ written by yourself for yourself. As soon as you add even one more person into the mix then some rulings in the FAQ are going to seem right to player A but wrong to player B. Such is human nature. Hell, we all (even me) complain about certain rulings in GW's own FAQs!

So yes, the INAT FAQ is flawed in the sense that all FAQs are flawed and will always be flawed because they aren't somehow able to look into the minds of each individual gamer and provide the answer that each person thinks is correct.



But the whole point of the INAT, despite what some people want to believe, is to first and foremost be a resource for tournament organizers to use as they see fit. That means if you don't like the rulings in the INAT (which is natural since you didn't make them yourself) then the document is also perfect to use as a jumping off point to write your own FAQ...I wrote in the INAT that it is perfectly acceptable to use the material within in any way to help you out in this way.

Now, it doesn't have every single question ever, and there are even a list of really good Necron questions in particular that need to get added to it whenever the next update happens (which sadly is probably not until after 6th edition drops because I'd hate to do a ton of work and then have it all erased in an instant), but even so, using the INAT as your starting point gives you access to 95% of the questions you need to address. So as Janthkin pointed out just use the INAT to pull questions and answers from for your own FAQ. Then if you don't like the answers, simply replace them with your own and viola, you have your own tournament FAQ!

But be warned ahead of time, some of your rulings will be dodgy!