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.

For those heavily involved with the 40K tournament scene, you're probably aware that the INAT FAQ (link here) has not been updated since mid-last year (2012). I did an interview on the 13th company explaining what was happening and I'm sure even if you didn't hear you could probably figure it out yourself, but I figure I'd make it official and just let everyone know what exactly is going on:

So just what is going on with the INAT?

It's sad for me to say, but for the foreseeable future, the INAT will be taking a hiatus. After 5 great years, there are a number of important reasons that have led me (for those who don't know, I'm the writer & editor of the INAT) to make this decision:

• GW's FAQs updates are far more regular and comprehensive than they used to be, lessening the need for an independent FAQ somewhat.
• My workload running Dakka and other side-projects has eaten into the amount of time I have available to work on the INAT.
• The 6th edition of the game has incorporated tons of small random special rules and other elements that are clearly there to strengthen the narrative focus of the game rather than create a streamlined game for tournament play, so I actually think that 6th edition is much harder to try to identify and FAQ every possible grey area (which was the goal of the INAT).
• I am not incredibly enthused with the direction of 6th edition Warhammer 40k personally, which means I no longer have the same drive to work to improve it.

A great at big thank you to everyone who ever reached out to me to let me know how useful the INAT had been to them, their gaming group or their event. It was those moments that made all the long hours working on this project totally worth it.

I will keep the last version of the INAT up and hosted here on Dakka (via www.inatfaq.com) for anyone who wants to use it as the template for something further (although remember that it was last updated during 5th edition).

And who knows, maybe some day the INAT will return!


-----


And as an addendum: I am still helping out Adepticon, WargamesCon, Bay Area Open and Feast of Blades with their FAQs (which they're all developing together), I'm just not in charge of collecting the questions and/or writing the document (which was the real time-sink, FYI).

I know some people may think that this new FAQ for those events is essentially just the INAT with a new name, but I can rest-assure you that this is not the case for the simple reason that the INAT was actually updated every time a new codex or GW FAQ update was released because it was designed to be used by absolutely any tournament that wanted to pick it up, which meant it always needed to be up to date.

This new FAQ is only being developed for 4 particular events, which means it will only be updated in time for each of those events, and each event can make any changes they see fit to their particular version of the document...so really the only way its even similar to the INAT is that a group of tournament organizers are getting together to vote on which way to call particular rulings to try to generally get similar rulings between at least their events.

I'm sorry to see this go as for many years, I and my friends used these for standard games at home, they were a great deal more comprehensive and clearly presented than what we've had from GW.

I can perfectly understand why though, 6th is so fiddly and complex, whilst also being so open ended, that a FAQ for it from the INAT for streamlined competitive play would be a nightmare to try and build, it's so utterly different from 5th that you'd have to do a complete rewrite and it would be vast and unwieldy.

And I share your thoughts on 6th.

Same here, both with the thanks for the years of clarifications and thoughts on 6th.

Thanks for all the work on it, yak, and your reasons are totally understandable. Probably the right time to put it out to pasture! The collaboration with those TOs also sounds like a great thing, even though it's not the same or to the same level.

Thanks for all the hard work and time you put in to helping the 40k community in this way, Yak!

It was definitely an honor when I got invited to the team and got to help a bit. I was particularly impressed with the organization and with how you were so conscientious about including a wide variety of voices, including making a point NOT to nominate me or other guys associated with Dakka for inclusion on the council.

Sad tidings. Not entirely unexpected, given the nature of 6e, but sad overall.

This makes me a sad panda :(

Thanks for all the hard work on it in years past - and 40K 6E has more or less killed much of my desire to play 40K as well...

Still, onwards and upwards!

I really thought I was one of a lonely few who felt like that about 6e... good to know I'm in such esteemed company.

Thank you Jon for all the hard work and dedication. I greatly appreciated all of the time and effort you put in to this document to provide a solid resource for the community to use. I also want to thank all of the other team members. The discussions were long and tedious at times, but the final quality of the product was like none other. Great job and good luck on your future endeavors.

I think 6E has it's charms (allies in particular, for me)- but I can definitely see why it doesn't lend itself to having something like the INAT, to nearly the degree that 5th did.

I actually think it could work fine. It's just a question of finding a person with the dedication, time and desire to do it. I think most folks have no comprehension how much work it is. The idea of a comprehensive independent FAQ was a recurrent topic of forum discussion for many years before a person appeared who was able and willing to take on the task, and to date no one else has appeared who has the time, dedication and talent.

And as Yakface said, it's less necessary nowadays, as GW has been much more timely and comprehensive with their FAQs than they used to be.

yeah,
Its sad to see the end of something a lot of people used.

I agree with you that 6th is a lot more open, but for the most part I enjoy that as I've always been a RAI kinda guy and I often disagreed with a lot of the RAW INAT calls :sadface:

Weirdly I did enjoyed reading it to see some of the questions that had come up and seeing if I agreed with the answer or not !?

 Mannahnin wrote:
I actually think it could work fine. It's just a question of finding a person with the dedication, time and desire to do it....And as Yakface said, it's less necessary nowadays, as GW has been much more timely and comprehensive with their FAQs than they used to be.

someone fetch the GWAR signal! j/k

 Mannahnin wrote:
And as Yakface said, it's less necessary nowadays, as GW has been much more timely and comprehensive with their FAQs than they used to be.

yes I concur!

Panic...

 yakface wrote:



• GW's FAQs updates are far more regular and comprehensive than they used to be, lessening the need for an independent FAQ somewhat.

I feel like the primary motivation behind GW stepping up thier FAQ quality and update schedule was the great work you and the INAT crew did in helping making the game playable. I think it accomplished it's goal for 5th edition and gave us years of quality gameplay. You guys showed what Good FAQs could do for the game.

That is a great legacy to leave on the 40k game. You guys should be very proud.