DaIronGob- those are two different questions.

The question you quote references a wording loophole in the assault rules. It was possible to state that the charging unit could not make contact with the enemy because models from two different units where lined up next to each other. The logic was that you could not charge unit A without entering the 1 inch no movement zone of unit B.

The deep strike ruling does not prohibit interspersed friendly models, nor does it prevent the deep striking model from coming with in 1 inch of a friendly model. The Deep Strike FAQ resolves the problem of the friendly model and the deep striker trying to occupy the same place on the table.

Lined up next to, is different from interspersing.

I can understand "next to" but they specifically mention that "two units interspersed". Interspersed meaning "to scatter here and there or place at intervals among other things".

So in effect allow one unit to be placed "among" another unit, i.e. within in it.

Diagram. Units are A and B

A...B...A...B...A = interspersed

A...A...B...B...B = lined up next to.

EDIT: In response to "The Deep Strike FAQ resolves the problem of the friendly model and the deep striker trying to occupy the same place on the table."

Granted that a model cannot stack base to base, but because it's a friendly unit, interspersing cannot be ignored.
EDIT again: my statement should read "should not be ignored.

I like it. I see the possibility of this FAQ becoming the 40K equivalent of the Direwolf FAQ for WFB. Direwolf is the de facto standard for WFB 6th edition, at least around here.

Kudos.

No.

77 teams of 4 players playing 4 rounds.

Friday Gladiator had 120 and Sunday 40k Championships has 136.

Adepticon 06

Friday- 40K Gladiator 120 players, WFB Escalation 38 players

Saturday - 40K team 76 teams (304), WFB championship 58 players

Sunday- 40K championships 136 players, WFB Team 41 teams (82)

*some of the above totals include the ringer. 

http://www.adepticon.org/modules.php?name=Sections&op=listarticles&secid=4

Posted By two heads talking on 09/07/2006 9:54 AM
here's a thought.. take this beta rules FAQ (change) right to the damn source and end it all.. rather than a bunch of people that think they know what it should be, why not sit down with the developers in a round table environment and hash it out.. obviously you (and i mean the ones responsible for the FAQ) think you know the rules better than the guys that wrote them, so, take up you pen and sword and go to the developers with this and let them know how you feel?

as Ed has mentioned about oh 10 times at least, there are quite a few cases where you have taken some pretty big leaps from the collective pool of the rules.. I know it's good to get the rules and how they will be used in the tourney, but why stop there? why not take this FAQ and challenge GW with it.. Or, is it what i feared when i first read it, a big ego dump to one up GW and thumb your noses at the developers and say you know best from afar, safe behind your keyboards where you can look down at the rest of us schmucks that don't agree with you?

Congratulations on putting together one of the bigger tournaments for 40K.. awesome.. the rules will not be able to be seen any other way.. but if you feel the need to do such a large FAQ, why not take it to the source and see just how close or far off you are..? ....

While you are at it, please pass me some of that crack that you are smokin'.  That's got to be some good stuff.  It's easy to say - take it to the source.  It's another thing to actually be able to execute it and have the developers or GW corporate listen. 

The organizational team at Adepticon is attempting to bring a much needed level of clarity to the game that GW has not been willing to undertake.  This is of great help because people will at least know what to expect coming to the event, which is far better than having a big misunderstanding in the middle of a game.  As Centurian99 has stated, this is a BETA version.  Send an email with your thoughts to the address provided.  Try to provide well thought out, concise reasons as to the rules that you have issues with.  

Overall, is this document going to be perfect.  No.  However, it brings a level of clarity to the game that GW has failed to undertake.

BTW - if you are willing to pay for several plane tickets (from Chicago), hotel expense, meals and spending money - I'm sure the Adepticon FAQ team will gladly go to England to talk to the dev team (if you guarantee that the dev team will sit down and listen).  Sending them an email is not going to help mainly because it's one click away from the Deleted Items folder.     

Posted By Inquisitor_Malice on 09/07/2006 7:51 PM

While you are at it, please pass me some of that crack that you are smokin'.  That's got to be some good stuff.  It's easy to say - take it to the source.  It's another thing to actually be able to execute it and have the developers or GW corporate listen. 

The organizational team at Adepticon is attempting to bring a much needed level of clarity to the game that GW has not been willing to undertake.  This is of great help because people will at least know what to expect coming to the event, which is far better than having a big misunderstanding in the middle of a game.  As Centurian99 has stated, this is a BETA version.  Send an email with your thoughts to the address provided.  Try to provide well thought out, concise reasons as to the rules that you have issues with.  

Overall, is this document going to be perfect.  No.  However, it brings a level of clarity to the game that GW has failed to undertake.

BTW - if you are willing to pay for several plane tickets (from Chicago), hotel expense, meals and spending money - I'm sure the Adepticon FAQ team will gladly go to England to talk to the dev team (if you guarantee that the dev team will sit down and listen).  Sending them an email is not going to help mainly because it's one click away from the Deleted Items folder.     

I see, is it crack because I think what you are doing is a good thing but not all the way done?  I for one think clarity is needed.. unfortunately I have heard the same kind of "comments about this is what it should be, not this way.. " etc and wonder, with the source available why someone would not try to counsel with the council? 

I am sure the Adepticon team is more than capable of taking themselves on a trip to England to see the basis of a hobby they care enough about to fill nearly 20 pages of corrections. That said, I can't afford to send myself there, so the answer to your suggestion is that I cannot nor will I attempt to send anyone anywhere. 

As for guaranteeing a sit down, I would think that the person capable of writing a document of this extent would also be able to write a very nice document that would allow the developers and opportunity to check it out.. Of course there is the avenue you suggest that you just don't have the nerve to send it to them as it will get poopoo'd.. Fine, don't do it.. It is a shame that you have the get up to write it, but not the moxy to get an official GW stamp on it.. I mean is it really so hard to type up a nice professional document and ask questions without immediately going into the.. "Well, GW, since you guys can't get the rules right, we have decided to take it upon ourselves to do just that.. and we are sending you a note to show you where the rules are wrong"   rather than the simple.. " Developers, the Adepticon 40k team in trying to create a clear and precise FAQ for our tournaments would like to address a few concerns we have and would like to discuss them with you and get your stamp of approval" 

Rather than get angry cause I don't agree with you (sorry I don't, and I make no apology of that) work with the developer team and create a situation that is beneficial to all of us, not jsut your local group. You see, a few nice emails to anyone on the GW staff will usually get you a nice response.. one idiotic email where you trounce the whole developer department for their inneptness will get you a quick trip to the email trash bin. As I mentioned earlier, if you are capable of such a nicely written document, I am sure you have the ability to contact the developers and start a two way conversation where your ideas and theirs would be better decided.. quite frankly, for our local group that is how we started.. and with each new question we have, there is someone willing to answer our email.. 

OH and here is the kicker.. the GW staff/developers/etc aren't any different than you or I except that they are closer to the core of the game.. the only ego they have is when someone steps on their foot and quite frankly you'd react the same way.. 

Posted By jfrazell on 09/08/2006 8:24 AM


Sorry, but if I were one of the guys working on this my reply would consist of a single finger digit (or two for you Brits) and maybe a "nuts" for historical flavoring.

no worries.. that's the typical dakka response when someone doesn't agree. and it's no wonder the only people listening are on the boards..  

you aren't the only one who can throw about the universal symbol for doing onself.. i like the arm in the air with the other arm crossed over.. it's got more power behind it..