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.

The rules that the developers write are okay in general. I think most of the posters here that rant about poor rules would all be fired from their jobs if they were held to the same standards they expect from GW... let's face facts - these are people that spend a large portion of the day surfing the web.

The two main problems with the rules are as follows:

Thick people that just do not understand simple concepts

People that want to bend the rules as much as possible in any fashion that their exploitation will help them to achieve another victory... an excellent example of this are blighters that use Vulkan's special rules for SoBs fielded as allies - clearly this was not the intent but the blighters cry RAW RAW RAW.

Last year there was a lot of concerns when the first INAT FAQ was released by GW. What cracks me is up is when people like JohnWangDD complain and he is not even going to Adepticon! Practically no one uses this FAQ outside of Adepticon. There is a thread in YMDC where you can provide feedback... of course Centurion99 has become somewhat the zealot regarding the FAQ but I can understand that it is partly his creation so his sense of ownership strongly influences his replies.

I had no problems with the FAQ last year playing at Adepticon. I have yet to read the new one for 5e but I have printed it and will absorb it over the holiday break.

G

warpcrafter wrote:

Stuff like this makes me want to bang my head against the way until no longer able to do so. You're making a complicated issue out of something that does not need to be. If this is what tournament regulars think of, perhaps I was wrong, you need a FAQ the size of the Encyclopedia Britannica and a huge man at each table with a baseball bat to enforce it.

Your hostility towards this issues baffles me. Do you simply harbor some vendetta against tournament gaming, or do you honestly think that any situation not neatly covered by the rules can be resolved through negotiation?

MDG's example was a good one, in that it showed a hole in the rules. Not necessarily one that can be exploited, or one that would ever come up in 99.99% of games, but it's there. Imagine a unit of spider riders with attached BSB gets nearly wiped out from shooting, and so the BSB joins the spearchucka. If, and this is a huge if, the situation MDG described arose the judge would make an arbitrary ruling. Now, the FAQs are in many way arbitrary: they did the best they could, but sometimes AN answer is all you need. The difference between the FAQ's arbitrary nature is that it is set. Once written, the judge merely looks it up and provides an answer. Absent that, the judge might be overly influenced by external factors. If he knows one of the players, if one player is a notorious boor, or even if one player plays the same army as the judge could be the deciding factor in these sorts of coin flips.

So, I'm not sure what your argument is. I'm tempted to say that you're simply raging against "tournament gamers", "power gamers," or some shadowy coalition of people that take the game at all seriously. If you genuinly think that there is no need for such a document at large competitive events, then you are either not articulating your reasoning well, or are simply a bit naive about the way these events can get competitive juices flowing.

N.B. My above example of the Spear Chukk cannot possibly be construed as Power Gaming. The Spear Chukka sets me back 35 points. And the Bigboss to carry the Banner? 110 points....pretty big points sink for the pay off!

Mind you, he does make units of Stikkas absolutely filthy!

And as Polonius says, the FAQ has been created to make the event go as smoothly as possible. ANY FAQ, even official GW ones (by their own admission) are largely arbitrary rulings to enable a game to continue. And frankly, I applaud the INAT guys for holding such an open consultation. In a world of arbitrary rulings, at least you can be 90% sure with theirs that there is no favouritism going on or backhander (ref: The 'Ard Boyz debacle where some just cannot accept bad calls might have been made).

I mean, consider it this way. In my games, we come up against oddities all the time. We quickly agree a course of action, THEN we consult the rulebooks and see if we were right etc. But this is friendly play, where we aren't especially fussed who wins as long as the game is fun. BUT, in a Tournament, you get rules lawyers (you get them as well in friendless mark you, I'm just smart enough not to play them). Ergo, the FAQ comes into it's own. A decision has been made for as many loopholes as possible. Thus, the Rules Lawyer cannot bore his opinion into your mind, as it is pointless. Consult the FAQ, get the decision, move on. It is not an attempt to promote powergaming and other shocking etiquette, but the exact opposite!

I've had too many judge rulings in the middle of a game of 'We don't play that way here' that if I had known that they changed the rules, I would have done something totally different. Not to mention now you're a 'bad person' because you don't play the game 'right'...Really detracts from the fun for both players in a tournament.

Having a written rules FAQ for a tourney available before you even choose your army is esential to promoting fun in a tournament.

I really look at the INIT FAQ as the 'minimum expectation'.

There's nothing to stop two players at Adepticon, to agree that the GK Dread on the board has a Heavy 4 Rending assault cannon. But, the GK player knows that he shouldn't expect that - the minimum is Heavy 3 non-rending. And if I played a GK player with one or two dreads, I'd let him play them as H4 Rend (if he was taking a list of cheddar that looked to exploit of bunch of loopholes, I wouldn't).

Most of the problems that I see are due to how GW releases their books. So, there's older Codeci interacting with newer ones (SW and SM) or older ones interacting with new rules (IG). How many people think it's right that an Inquisitorial Chimera or Rhino can be a battlefield taxi?

GW has made it clear that they have no interest in making comprehensive FAQs. They don't think they need to because it's only competitive tourney gamers that want them and that is a small section of their market (I think they're wrong, but unless they offer me the CEO job, I don't think they care what my opinion is). And I'm pretty sure that they would say not letting your Inquisitor opponent uses his dedicated transports is 'unsporting' or you're a beardy tourney gamer that ruins the hobby (or something similar).

Keep in mind, GW plays the game how they think it should be played. And that often means they're very sporting about stuff. I remember years ago that someone (Jervis? Andy Chambers?) commented how they had a new hire join the studio Bloodbowl League. The new guy immediately got a Dirty Player (this predates I've Got My Eye On You) and brutalized the staff league with him. GW's reaction was something to the effect of, "wow, we had no idea how ugly that was. No one here abused Dirty Player like that, we're a bunch of gentlemen. that's not how we meant the game to play." It might not have been their intent, but it was how the game was being played in the rest of the world. They don't even realize their own rules at times.

Exactly. I still don't like how Tournaments work (I really don't get the overly competitive streak some have) but this FAQ is a definite step in the right direction.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:...(I really don't get the overly competitive streak some have)...

It's called being a Yank!

Americans it's what we do!

skyth wrote:I've had too many judge rulings in the middle of a game of 'We don't play that way here' that if I had known that they changed the rules, I would have done something totally different. Not to mention now you're a 'bad person' because you don't play the game 'right'...Really detracts from the fun for both players in a tournament.

Having a written rules FAQ for a tourney available before you even choose your army is esential to promoting fun in a tournament.

QFT!!!

G

We've said it before, and I'll say it again. STOP talking about the 'Ard Boyz alleged cheating incident. Both sides have their story, and there's no way for the argument to progress any further barring additional comments by someone who was involved. It's also off-topic for this thread.

I'm not trying to take sides on this; I'm simply trying to prevent any additional flare-ups over this volatile topic. Discussion won't get us anywhere on this one.

Thank you. If you have any questions about this, feel free to PM me, Yakface, or any of the other mods.

All off-topic posts have been removed from this thread.

nvmd

Every tourney with their own FAQ is perfectly fine. Every organiser has rthe right to make any and all rules they want for their tournament. No one is forced to play in any environment they don't want to play in. his FAQ is for Adepticon and Adepticon only. I think some posters feel this will become the default new rulebook across the land so they want to get it changed to their own way or they want to try and can it before it spreads.

To late. This will be used at Adepticon and any other tourney that wishes to use it. If you run your own tourney, then you can have your own faq. Make sure it is complete. Make sure everyone who might come has access to it. If you pass it around to a few friends and half the tourney doesn't have it, you will be called a jerk and people will leave.

This really is a unique situation. Most everyone on this forum will not, in thier life, have anything to do with a tournament this large and draws people from so far away. Period. Adepticon needs this. You may not. If you don't like it, then don't come. We tell parents if you don't like what your kids are watching on TV, turn the channel. If you don't like the rules of this tourney, don't come. If you feel you need to come and you don't like the rules, then offer to run something next year and you will be put on the comittee (I don't like council) who makes the rules. Maybe next year there will be no rules and you will be happy.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

insaniak wrote:Because the current rulebook isn't complete, and has unclear rules and situations that simply aren't covered

DAaddict wrote:1. The 5th ed rules do suck. There are many holes in it thus the need to clarify the rules especially when they need to be applied to some codexes that date back to early 3rd edition.

Examples, please.

I doubt that either of you can come up with even a handful of legitimate rulebook issues.


Codices, however, are another matter, and that is tied primarily to the age of the Codices. Perhaps GW should simply cancel any of the older Codices that they have problems with?

Not having access to the rulebook to quote... I will pick on the icon of 5th edition... TLOS.

True LOS is wonderful in theory and truly cool with 10 to 15 figs to a side but I have yet to see it truly applied as they say it should be. Why not? Because some popular armies would be painfully slow to play and doomed in a limited time round-based tournament.

1. If I can target even 1 figure in a unit I can fire at the whole unit.
2. If an individual in your unit cannot trace a LOS to one figure in the target unit, it cannot shoot.
3. Figures in the same unit do not block LOS.

So game example... mob of 30 shoot boy orks spots one eldar guardian in a building.... Most are behind a solid wall but 1 figure is definitely seen by 1 orc on the left hand side of the mob... say 10" away.. well in shoota range... the mob is about 10" across on the table and about 6" deep. 30 orks ... with TLOS I am compelled to prove that all these orks can trace LOS to that one figure and are withing the 18" range of their weapon. All good, all fine but now let's get real.... 120+ orcs measuring TLOS across the table for 5 to 7 turns... say even 10 seconds per LOS check and we have 1200 seconds of LOS checks per turn... Unless my math is wrong, to use 5th ed RAW, we should exped 2 hours of TLOS measuring to get through one orc turn... I submit no one plays true 5th edition rules. We play modified 4th edition LOS with 5th edition LOS blocking as well as 5th edition charts and such... wonderful.

That is why 5th ed. SUCKS "Don't pee on my leg and tell me it is raining..." 5th edition cleand up some things beautifully but it imposed some stupidity that works in Mordheim or Necromunda that has no business in armies with 50 to 150 figs per side.

Now as for my statement... a FAQ is a necessary evil given codecies that stretch over - what a 10 year span written 2 full versions of the core rules ago. I think any FAQ is wonderful. You are at your option to use it or not in your everyday play but at Adepticon this is the bible so expect it for rulings... (If it is not ... it is a waste of time as then you still leave two opponents -rule lawyers- arguing over whose interpretation is correct and the INAT FAQ is just another quoteable resource to impose your will or to be scoffed at as "non-GW therfore not the law."

@DAddict: TLOS is a preferences issue, not a rules issue. There are no inconsistencies / loopholes in the TLOS rule that you have raised.

Measurement of the 18" range is trivially easy - you just sweep an 18" range stick from the Guardian and see that the farthest Boyz are in range. 10 seconds max for the entire unit.

Checking LOS is generally easy as well, as you sweep your head (or laserpointer) behind your dudes from left to right. maybe another 30 seconds.

Perhaps you need to find faster ways to play?

JohnHwangDD wrote:@DAddict: TLOS is a preferences issue, not a rules issue. There are no inconsistencies / loopholes in the TLOS rule that you have raised.

Measurement of the 18" range is trivially easy - you just sweep an 18" range stick from the Guardian and see that the farthest Boyz are in range. 10 seconds max for the entire unit.

Checking LOS is generally easy as well, as you sweep your head (or laserpointer) behind your dudes from left to right. maybe another 30 seconds.

Perhaps you need to find faster ways to play?

Odd, he makes the claim that the TLOS rules are so cumbersome that they are not played as written in the intrest of time, you counter that this is a bad example... because you can play them not as written in the interest of time. Novel rhetorical tact.

Moving on, the problem with your argument is that it may be trivially true that we "can come up with even a handful of legitimate rulebook issues", which is mainly because of the view that "Codices, however, are another matter". The inadequacy of this view is easily determined by how poorly your suggestion "[p]erhaps GW should simply cancel any of the older Codices that they have problems with" actually solves the RB/Codex rules discrepancies. For example: the interaction of independent characters and unit special rules, which are written with great precision in the RB, a precision not to be found in any Codex, whether it is the Eldar, Chaos Space Marines, Orks or Space Marines. If we were to "cancel any of the older Codices that they have problems with", our list of options would grow thin indeed.

As a matter of reference, it's probably easier to list the Codecii that do not have rules problems. Off the top of my head the only one that springs to mind is the Tyranid Codex...

Buzzsaw: your avatar is made of wincandy and badassednessly. Excellent execution.

You know, I've played at one FLGS for about 10 years. I ran into a house rule once, back in 2001. I've played MANY tourney's there. We don't have a FAQ for 40k in our store. We ask the owner, and he reads us a story from the rules. Or we ask another player. It's not that we are oppossed to a FAQ; there seems to be no need for one. I think this is good, because if I had to use a new FAQ for each store I went to, that would completely destroy the portability of 40k for me. You can pack that idea right up, it would suck.

Prehaps if you need a FAQ for 40k in your FLGS, you are doing something different. Maybe you should do something else. Just a suggesstion.

Right, because the people at your local game store have the 'One Right Way' to interpret the rules...

grizgrin wrote:Buzzsaw: your avatar is made of wincandy and badassednessly. Excellent execution.

Much thanks, though I cannot take credit for the design, alas.

grizgrin wrote:You know, I've played at one FLGS for about 10 years. I ran into a house rule once, back in 2001. I've played MANY tourney's there. We don't have a FAQ for 40k in our store. We ask the owner, and he reads us a story from the rules. Or we ask another player. It's not that we are oppossed to a FAQ; there seems to be no need for one. I think this is good, because if I had to use a new FAQ for each store I went to, that would completely destroy the portability of 40k for me. You can pack that idea right up, it would suck.

Prehaps if you need a FAQ for 40k in your FLGS, you are doing something different. Maybe you should do something else. Just a suggesstion.

I think you'ce actually nicely defined why many of us do need an FAQ: at the FLGS where I play the store owner is well meaning, but not particularly well versed in the rules. When we have tournaments with prizes, typically half of the participants will be regulars, half will be people rarely ever seen or complete strangers. When a rules issue comes up (and I think we have to accept as a given that they will come up), what are we too do? We can't ask the owner, he doesn't know the rules. We can't ask one of the players that are assumed to know the rules; they're interested parties (that is, they can potentially profit from one or another answer), moreover, asking one or another participant at a tourney, especially when you are asking a regular, creates the appearance of impropriety (are we asking X because he knows the rules, or because he's the most popular guy at the store?).

Having a FAQ specifically designed by a (relatively) trusted third party we eliminate the issues of lack of knowledge, and lack of impartiality. I must question the notion that the existence of a nationally (indeed, internationally) popular FAQ will limit portability, by my light it dramatically increases it.

It has been said in this discussion that if you don't like the INAT faq, don't use it. Unfortunately, it's not an either/or situation, but more of an if/then. If you want to play at adepticon, or any other tournament that adopts this FAQ, then you have to use it, because it's what's there. Either liking them and using them or disliking them and not using them is not an option for any event that adopts them. Your only option is not to go, which is a rather sad thing to tell someone, and is vaguely reminiscent of childhood behavior "If you want to play you play how we say, or go away."

Which brings my argument against what they've done. For the most part, I am ok with what they have put forth, and I do appreciate the effort. I even like having such a document that you can work with and go to for issues available, particularly well in advance so that you know not to try to bring something because a clarification on how a rule works might not be what you thought. The problem though is the changing of RAW. Not everyone reads the faq, or has even necessarily heard of it (I believe there was a previous poster in this thread who'd said as much of themself). I find it a bit offputting to think that I might travel to a tournament, and halfway through a game find out that they've changed a rule. Having a slightly different interpretation to how it might apply, fine. But outright changing a rule to be something else I don't agree with. A large tournament, where people are coming from all over the place to play, is the one place where RAW should be strictly enforced, as it's the one thing everyone is going to have had the chance to see, play with, and understand. Interpretations, clarifications yes. But rule changes should be avoided.

The other thing about the INAT specifically, is that they're changing the rules they FEEL like changing, and leaving other things in that also don't make much sense, but then say, "Well, that's RAW." How is RAW good enough in some instances, but not in others? If you're going to change rules, change all the ones that don't make sense. Go ahead and let all the SM's use the latest wargear, specify that DH force weapons cause instant death as opposed to slay outright, make your own rule for WBB so that it's clear, concise, and consistent. Do it all, or do none, and just put clarifications out there for what people have the most questions for.

Every place changes the rules of the game...It's better to have the place advertise in advance what the local changes are so you aren't surprised in the middle of a game.

In other words, every tournament follows the "If you want to play, you play how we say, or go away". It's just that Adepticon is honest and forthright about the 'how we say' part of the whole equation.

dancingcricket wrote:If you want to play at adepticon, or any other tournament that adopts this FAQ, then you have to use it, because it's what's there.

Of course you do. Just like you have to follow the rules set for any tournament that you enter.

If people don't enter because of the rules being used, then the TO will no doubt have another look at whether or not the rules they are using are the best idea.

Either liking them and using them or disliking them and not using them is not an option for any event that adopts them. Your only option is not to go, which is a rather sad thing to tell someone,

If the event was for 2500 points, and you only like playing 1500 point games, would someone telling you you're better off not entering seem as sad?

Or would it just be common sense not to enter a tournament that is using rules that you don't like...?

and is vaguely reminiscent of childhood behavior "If you want to play you play how we say, or go away."

How else is a tournament going to work?

Not everyone reads the faq, or has even necessarily heard of it (I believe there was a previous poster in this thread who'd said as much of themself). I find it a bit offputting to think that I might travel to a tournament, and halfway through a game find out that they've changed a rule.

When you enter the tournament, you're told what rules are in place. If you read in the tournament information that the INAT FAQ is being used and where you can find it, and don't take the time to download and read it, that's entirely on your own head.

If you're going to change rules, change all the ones that don't make sense.

Fine in theory. Try getting any large group of people to all agree on which ones don't make sense, though.

At least you guys can see it! I can't even read the damn thing to find out why everyone hates it.

Skyth: I didn't say that anyone doing anything different was doing something wrong. We do not have all the answers, but we realize that it is a game and frankly interpreting those rules is only worth so much time. I am not sur ethat there is a 'One Right Way' as you put it, since I have sen people have diffewrences of opinion, and both have very good grounds for their opinions.

Honestly, I don't see a FAQ as a bad idea. I just think its bs to have some FNG come in the door to a tourney, and then hand him an addenda that he MUST abide by. However, it is also bs for the locals to have a different interpretation suddenly dropped into their midst.

So both sides there have perfectly valid perspectives, bu do not agre. This is because the rules are imperfect. Not even the most rabid fanboiiii would argue otherwise, I think. Not because the locals are jerks, or the FNG is a jerk. The rules are imperfect, and that is the root of the issue. Anyone disagreing with me is welcome to put me on ignore now. Go ahead, it's just a mouse click away.


Oh, it looks like you are insinuating in your next post that no other venue besides Adepticon is "honest". May want to re-word that, I am fairly sure that was not you are sentiment. If it was, well, ok. Opinions vary.

Buzzsaw: I was decrying the use of individual FAQ's, one for each location of play. If there was an "official" FAQ for the game period, I would use the crap out of it. A single FAQ, recognized everywhere? Used by everyone playing "Warhammer 40k" and not playing "Localhammer 40k"? Dude, all I can say is "Gimmee!" I'd eat it up. You are right, a single FAQ would increase portability. I was not refering to a single FAQ, but to having a different FAQ in each location.

I do see part of your point, however. I ma spoiled by having a great FLGS with a very smart and engaged owner. Our players try very hard to give impartial opinions when asked about other people's games. I'll be honest, I am EXTREMELY unsettled, as far as my gmaing life, by GW's lack of interest in FAQing things more. Although I was pleasantly suprised when they FAQ'ed damn near EVERY codex in existance so soon after 5th ed came out. I was looking forward to a sea change in how they handle their rules. I have been disappointed since.


Dancing cricket: I wanted to address your comment concerning RAW and the INAT faq. They make a FAQ, they can do whatever they want to with it. But really, it ceases to be a FAQ. This is no longer Frequently Asked Questions, but now a re-write. As far as them picking and choosing what to change, what questions to answer, and what to leave be; you always have ot draw a line somewhere. That's evidently just where they chose to draw it. I know it's not a satisfying answer, but it's the truth.

Buzzsaw wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:@DAddict: TLOS is a preferences issue, not a rules issue.

Perhaps you need to find faster ways to play?

Odd, he makes the claim that the TLOS rules are so cumbersome that they are not played as written in the intrest of time, you counter that this is a bad example... because you can play them not as written in the interest of time.

your suggestion "[p]erhaps GW should simply cancel any of the older Codices that they have problems with"

No, I play shooty Guard. For Apocalypse. Under 5E rules. I don't have a problem with TLOS. I don't find it cumbersome at all. Claiming TLOS to be cumbersome flies in the face of actual experience. So I guess, I'm saying that it doesn't nearly as long nubcake suggests and that nubcake should learn how to play faster. Arguing that you can't check range or LOS en masse is foolish, as the rules simply set a requirement to check range and LOS for each model. If I choose to meet that requirement more efficiently, that is my business. If nubcake can't do that, that's his problem.

If you paid better attention, you would recognize my suggestion to cancel Codices as facetious.

I agree with insaniak's last line. The line has to be drawn somewhere.

JHDD: I'd say behave, but if you did I'd be worried. That was fascetiwhateveryousaidwordthingy as well.

grizgrin wrote: I just think its bs to have some FNG come in the door to a tourney, and then hand him an addenda that he MUST abide by. However, it is also bs for the locals to have a different interpretation suddenly dropped into their midst.

Oh, it looks like you are insinuating in your next post that no other venue besides Adepticon is "honest". May want to re-word that, I am fairly sure that was not you are sentiment. If it was, well, ok. Opinions vary.

I'm saying that a place that surprises the out of towners with local house rules is really being less than honest...Though probably not intentionally. You also don't hand the FAQ out the day of the tournament, but rather have it available before the tournament so there are no surprises before you build your list.

skyth: I'm saying that calling someone dishonest because they don't have a FAQ for their store is ridiculous. I'm sorry, I searched for 5 minutes for a word that wasn't so loaded to describe what I thought about it, but that's it.

You focused on one part of my post, and either failed or chose not to read it in the context of the whole. The whole thrust of what I was posting, by placing two juxtaposed positions back to back, is that ther IS no clean solution to the problem that satisfies everyoine and everything. With the exception of cleaning up the rules themselves. And since we, the gaming community, have been marginalized by GW (or I guess rather by our lack of market-share representation compared to these people who just buy the stuff to model it), I see little opportunity to exert leverage on GW to get them to clean up the rules to where further FAQ's are not needed. Don't get me wrong, I think they did a LOT more cleaning in 5th ed, and the subsequent FAQ's , than I would have dreamed. But there is more work to be done. And I'm betting it won't get done.

Calling it intentional or unintentional is irrelevant, and indeed slaughters the meaning of the word "honest". Honesty is directly tied to intent, you cannot accidentally be dishonest. That is an accident, not a lack of honesty. Every word that is an opposite of honesty in this definition has intent and deceit as an integral part. The concept of honesty as being divorcable from intent is ludicrous.

Sure you want to call the rest of the venues in the world dishonest if they don't have a published FAQ?

Link that might help you in your journey to understanding: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/honest

As far as handing out a FAQ on tourney day, don't make me laugh. I was not insinuating anyone was doing that, or promoting that idea, with the tidbit you quoted. Again, context is to the written word as location is to real estate. Try to seperate the two and the best you'll come up with is garbage.

JohnHwangDD wrote:No, I play shooty Guard. For Apocalypse. Under 5E rules. I don't have a problem with TLOS. I don't find it cumbersome at all. Yadda yadda nubcake yadda nubcake should learn how to play faster. Yadda yadda If nubcake can't do that, that's his problem.

If you paid better attention, you would recognize my suggestion to cancel Codices as facetious.

My most profuse apologies. How I ever confused a transparently facetious statement with your trademark brand of well reasoned argument will, no doubt, remain a mystery.

Moving on,

grizgrin wrote:As far as handing out a FAQ on tourney day, don't make me laugh. I was not insinuating anyone was doing that, or promoting that idea,

Don't discard this so quickly: at my FLGS our tournaments are small, and the players a mix of regulars and people who we have no idea how they even knew about the tourney. We certainly don't make it a secret that we used the INAT FAQ previously, but there is no way for us to let people know ahead of time. The advertising budget is the 15 minutes the FLGS owner took to make a flyer and the hour he spends setting up the night before. Chances are most of the people won't find out there even is an FAQ for the event until a ruling has to be made. There the issue is foremost that the FAQ be unbiased, which it clearly is.

In a context like that, the only problem with the INAT FAQ is the "Rules change" and "GW FAQ Overrides", which are mercifully rare. It's an issue of simple fairness: show up with a list that according to your Codex has 5 scoring units only to find out it now has 2 is ultimately unfair. Finding out that when you DS a monolith onto a landraider you don't get to change the facing isn't. Now, it can correctly be argued that people who know about the FAQ have an advantage over those who find out at the event, but it's simply not something we can do anything about. Further, it falls into the realm of the unavoidable unfairness; after all, regulars have the opportunity to know (to a greater or lesser degree) what the other regulars are bringing, newcomers have the element of surprise. Regulars know what the store terrain looks like and so on, all these and many more are small bits of unfairness that we try our best to minimize, and using an independent FAQ is one way to do that, minimize unfairness.