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.

i would clarify this flamer dispute with a tournament organizer before games to make sure arguements are kept to a minimum once the dice start flying. Its likely this rule will be subject to interpretation and various regions may play it differently. I can almost assure you that most places will allow firing a flame weapon out of a vehicles fire point.

Dash are you saying i can fire my squads weapons out of the turret of a chimera? if so that means you would miss the hull of the vehicle entirely.

I will agree with Khornatedemon and the INAT Faq and say I will be able to fire flamers out of fire points.

I would also say so, but like i posted sometimes the rules get interpreted differently depending on region.

Shep when we make it to the finals you'll have to fight my guard list-15 vehicles vs 18 vehicles=more carnage than a demolition derby!

When you go to Adepticon, you're welcome to use the Adepticon FAQ.

However, remember that the Adepticon FAQ blatantly changes, modifies, and creates rules that it doesn't feel fits the spirit of 40k and other "stuff." Adepticon is not a GW tournament. 'Ard Boyz IS a GW tournament, and will not be following the Adepticon FAQ, it will be following the GW rules.

P.28: "...the template covers as many models as possible in the target unit without touching any friendly models."
P.29: "...You may not place the marker so that the base or hull of any of your own models is even grazed by it."
P.62: "...Ranges and line of sight are measured from the fire point itself."


You've very clearly been instructed on how to fire this weapon. In a game, I am absolutely going to require you to abide by the rules, just like I am required to abide by them. You're welcome to use "house rules" for friendly games, but at a tournament, I expect everyone to follow the same rules that I have to follow. If you place a blast or template weapon on the table, and it covers ANY PART of a friendly model, you may not fire it there. If your fire points are not on the outside hull of your vehicle, the passengers inside may not fire their template weapon if the template touches part of the vehicle it is embarked upon.

I don't make the rules, but I follow them; and expect other people to do so as well. There is no interpretation to make, and I don't care what the INAT FAQ says; this weekend is a GW tournament with GW rules, not Adepticon with INAT rules.

Dashofpepper wrote:When you go to Adepticon, you're welcome to use the Adepticon FAQ.

However, remember that the Adepticon FAQ blatantly changes, modifies, and creates rules that it doesn't feel fits the spirit of 40k and other "stuff." Adepticon is not a GW tournament. 'Ard Boyz IS a GW tournament, and will not be following the Adepticon FAQ, it will be following the GW rules.

P.28: "...the template covers as many models as possible in the target unit without touching any friendly models."
P.29: "...You may not place the marker so that the base or hull of any of your own models is even grazed by it."
P.62: "...Ranges and line of sight are measured from the fire point itself."


You've very clearly been instructed on how to fire this weapon. In a game, I am absolutely going to require you to abide by the rules, just like I am required to abide by them. You're welcome to use "house rules" for friendly games, but at a tournament, I expect everyone to follow the same rules that I have to follow. If you place a blast or template weapon on the table, and it covers ANY PART of a friendly model, you may not fire it there. If your fire points are not on the outside hull of your vehicle, the passengers inside may not fire their template weapon if the template touches part of the vehicle it is embarked upon.

I don't make the rules, but I follow them; and expect other people to do so as well. There is no interpretation to make, and I don't care what the INAT FAQ says; this weekend is a GW tournament with GW rules, not Adepticon with INAT rules.

GW will clarify rules like this for the 'ard boys finals since the RAW are inconsistent. Why is weapon a arbitrarily penalized for using a fire point while weapon b is not? That is why Adepticon made a clarification of the ruleset for things like this and about 80 other things that aren't at all clear in the rulebook or have inconsistencies.

The point is moot because GW will likely release a FAQ for the 'ard boyz tournament anyway that will clarify this rule as well. I believe the precedent in the past is that they usually agree with the Adepticon assessments.

Was there an FAQ last year? And if there was, I'm curious to know what it said about Deff Rollas vs. vehicles.

Unfortunately, or fortunately, this weekend is a Tournament that uses the rules of whatever the tournament organizer at your local FLGS that is hosting the tournament rules... which means your mileage may vary...

This is also only one of MANY inconsistent, vague, and controversial aspects of the rule set, so its an endless argument... read a white dwarf battle report and you'll see how inconsistent they are with their own games

Dashofpepper wrote:When you go to Adepticon, you're welcome to use the Adepticon FAQ.

However, remember that the Adepticon FAQ blatantly changes, modifies, and creates rules that it doesn't feel fits the spirit of 40k and other "stuff." Adepticon is not a GW tournament. 'Ard Boyz IS a GW tournament, and will not be following the Adepticon FAQ, it will be following the GW rules.

P.28: "...the template covers as many models as possible in the target unit without touching any friendly models."
P.29: "...You may not place the marker so that the base or hull of any of your own models is even grazed by it."
P.62: "...Ranges and line of sight are measured from the fire point itself."


You've very clearly been instructed on how to fire this weapon. In a game, I am absolutely going to require you to abide by the rules, just like I am required to abide by them. You're welcome to use "house rules" for friendly games, but at a tournament, I expect everyone to follow the same rules that I have to follow. If you place a blast or template weapon on the table, and it covers ANY PART of a friendly model, you may not fire it there. If your fire points are not on the outside hull of your vehicle, the passengers inside may not fire their template weapon if the template touches part of the vehicle it is embarked upon.

I don't make the rules, but I follow them; and expect other people to do so as well. There is no interpretation to make, and I don't care what the INAT FAQ says; this weekend is a GW tournament with GW rules, not Adepticon with INAT rules.

forget the adepticon faq. Like we said it was ruled ok at both GW GT's AND ard boyz finals last year. That coupled with the fact I havent met a TO that plays the way you think and I'm pretty confident that us flamer out of the top of rhino people are ok.

Dashofpepper wrote:When you go to Adepticon, you're welcome to use the Adepticon FAQ.

However, remember that the Adepticon FAQ blatantly changes, modifies, and creates rules that it doesn't feel fits the spirit of 40k and other "stuff." Adepticon is not a GW tournament. 'Ard Boyz IS a GW tournament, and will not be following the Adepticon FAQ, it will be following the GW rules.

P.28: "...the template covers as many models as possible in the target unit without touching any friendly models."
P.29: "...You may not place the marker so that the base or hull of any of your own models is even grazed by it."
P.62: "...Ranges and line of sight are measured from the fire point itself."


You've very clearly been instructed on how to fire this weapon. In a game, I am absolutely going to require you to abide by the rules, just like I am required to abide by them. You're welcome to use "house rules" for friendly games, but at a tournament, I expect everyone to follow the same rules that I have to follow. If you place a blast or template weapon on the table, and it covers ANY PART of a friendly model, you may not fire it there. If your fire points are not on the outside hull of your vehicle, the passengers inside may not fire their template weapon if the template touches part of the vehicle it is embarked upon.

I don't make the rules, but I follow them; and expect other people to do so as well. There is no interpretation to make, and I don't care what the INAT FAQ says; this weekend is a GW tournament with GW rules, not Adepticon with INAT rules.

Just remember, by your rationale, if you don't have a Deff Rolla modelled onto your Battlewagon, you can't use it. You've previously advised you had to proxy a couple items of wargear since GW doesn't make the model. WYSIWYG is written into the Ard Boyz rules. All I'm saying is be careful what you demand in regards to the rules.

Flamers grazing vehicle hulls from thier own firepoints is arbitary.

Deffrollas vs vehicles is not arbitary, its game changing.

Careful not to compare & contrast these two Dash...

Sarigar wrote:Just remember, by your rationale, if you don't have a Deff Rolla modelled onto your Battlewagon, you can't use it. You've previously advised you had to proxy a couple items of wargear since GW doesn't make the model. WYSIWYG is written into the Ard Boyz rules. All I'm saying is be careful what you demand in regards to the rules.

You can use the "Counts As" rule to handle that sort of stuff. Just because it says WYSIWYG doesn't mean it has to be GW stuff.

Dash,

Forget about INAT ok, GW, yes GW, the company that make the rules, GW...

They ruled both for GT and Ard Boyz that flamers may fire out of fire points. If you still have a problem with it clarify it with your TO.

Just because you interpret a rule one way does not meant that is the established convention of play and does not give you the right to demand someone else use your interpretation.

That clear enough for you?

Gornall wrote:

Sarigar wrote:Just remember, by your rationale, if you don't have a Deff Rolla modelled onto your Battlewagon, you can't use it. You've previously advised you had to proxy a couple items of wargear since GW doesn't make the model. WYSIWYG is written into the Ard Boyz rules. All I'm saying is be careful what you demand in regards to the rules.

You can use the "Counts As" rule to handle that sort of stuff. Just because it says WYSIWYG doesn't mean it has to be GW stuff.

QFT.

WYSIWYG means that each model must have upgrades clearly delineated by some sort of addition. The majority of the model must consist of GW parts.

That doesn't mean that a Deff Rolla needs to be a big circular spiky ball, it means that a battlewagon must have a clearly identifiable feature demonstrating that it has a Deffrolla that seperates it from other battlewagons without a Deff Rolla, and that the majority of the the pieces making up the battlewagon and Deff Rolla must be citadel parts.

Semantics at this point because I've stopped using Deff Rollas because I'm tired of the arguments. Also irrelevant to compare with flamers firing out of ports. One is a modeling issue, one is a rules issue. There's not really any comparison.

And bigtmac68...if you can link me the FAQ where GW has noted that flamers firing out of vehicle ports not on a vehicle hull is ok, then I'll consider the rules in this case to be irrelevant and go with the FAQ. Short of that, the rules are absolutely clear. There's not even any room for confusion or contention. There's no ambiguous language. Just because you don't like it and wish to circumvent the rules in your own games doesn't make it right. There is NO interpretation to be had of the rules in this case; they're crystal clear. I don't demand someone use my interpretations, I demand that interpretations stay out of 40k games and that we play by the rules.

That clear enough for YOU? Cheat all you like, but don't do it in my games.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
And to quote something I just read somewhere else...

Popularity of an opinion does not make it correct. The RAW is very clear.

Dashofpepper wrote:

Gornall wrote:

Sarigar wrote:Just remember, by your rationale, if you don't have a Deff Rolla modelled onto your Battlewagon, you can't use it. You've previously advised you had to proxy a couple items of wargear since GW doesn't make the model. WYSIWYG is written into the Ard Boyz rules. All I'm saying is be careful what you demand in regards to the rules.

You can use the "Counts As" rule to handle that sort of stuff. Just because it says WYSIWYG doesn't mean it has to be GW stuff.

QFT.

WYSIWYG means that each model must have upgrades clearly delineated by some sort of addition. The majority of the model must consist of GW parts.

That doesn't mean that a Deff Rolla needs to be a big circular spiky ball, it means that a battlewagon must have a clearly identifiable feature demonstrating that it has a Deffrolla that seperates it from other battlewagons without a Deff Rolla, and that the majority of the the pieces making up the battlewagon and Deff Rolla must be citadel parts.

Semantics at this point because I've stopped using Deff Rollas because I'm tired of the arguments. Also irrelevant to compare with flamers firing out of ports. One is a modeling issue, one is a rules issue. There's not really any comparison.

And bigtmac68...if you can link me the FAQ where GW has noted that flamers firing out of vehicle ports not on a vehicle hull is ok, then I'll consider the rules in this case to be irrelevant and go with the FAQ. Short of that, the rules are absolutely clear. There's not even any room for confusion or contention. There's no ambiguous language. Just because you don't like it and wish to circumvent the rules in your own games doesn't make it right. There is NO interpretation to be had of the rules in this case; they're crystal clear. I don't demand someone use my interpretations, I demand that interpretations stay out of 40k games and that we play by the rules.

That clear enough for YOU? Cheat all you like, but don't do it in my games.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
And to quote something I just read somewhere else...

Popularity of an opinion does not make it correct. The RAW is very clear.

then we will continue to keep cheating while you languish in your 40k la la land.

Popularity of opinion does make it correct if the people running events are of the opinion that is in touch with that of the popular idea. So you can play it how you wish. The rest of us will play it how our TO's say we can.

I look forward to Monday's report where you were flamered out of a Chimera and the TO allowed it.

By your interpretation, Immolators, turret HF Chimeras, and Bane Wolves are all paperweights.

Shotgun, don't be a git.

That's not even remotely what we're talking about. An immolator fires its weapon from the turret, as do turret HF chimeras. I don't know what a bane wolf is. The only thing you MAY NOT DO is fire your flamer over friendly models. You can't flame one of your own units.

Firing a passenger mounted flamer from a centrally mounted spot in a transport would flame your own vehicle (not from the vehicles weaponry) which is illegal. Khornatedemon, you can play how your TOs say that you can. Where I'm from, TOs have the rulebook and FAQs to make decisions from.

Crap like, "Well, someone somewhere else said it was ok once" doesn't mean anything. If your TO says its ok...that's fine. It clearly violates the rules, but that's their prerogative. I have no issue pointing out to a TO what the rule says if I run into this scenario, and noting that one unit is attempting to flamer me through another unit. That's an absolute black and white no-no.

Dashofpepper wrote:Shotgun, don't be a git.

That's not even remotely what we're talking about. An immolator fires its weapon from the turret, as do turret HF chimeras. I don't know what a bane wolf is. The only thing you MAY NOT DO is fire your flamer over friendly models. You can't flame one of your own units.

Firing a passenger mounted flamer from a centrally mounted spot in a transport would flame your own vehicle (not from the vehicles weaponry) which is illegal. Khornatedemon, you can play how your TOs say that you can. Where I'm from, TOs have the rulebook and FAQs to make decisions from.

Crap like, "Well, someone somewhere else said it was ok once" doesn't mean anything. If your TO says its ok...that's fine. It clearly violates the rules, but that's their prerogative. I have no issue pointing out to a TO what the rule says if I run into this scenario, and noting that one unit is attempting to flamer me through another unit. That's an absolute black and white no-no.

And where I'm from TO's have the sense to take rulings handed down by GW to mind when they make their own rulings.

Actually if you want to be technical shotgun is correct. Why does a turret ignore what you are saying about fire points? The template will still go over part of the vehicles own hull, which is a no no.

How the frack am I being a git?

All three of those things I listed use a flame template fired from a turrent. When firing -anywhere- but possibly 90 degrees tot he left and right, the template will overlap the body of the vehicle, which from your possition is completely illegal. There is no stipulation for turrent fired weapons...if the template covers a friendly, it can't fire.

GW makes illegal models?

GW make rules all the time that make thier own models unplayable. When this happens we have to get rulings to cover them.

That is Hardly Cheating there Dash.

If the TO where you play ( remember you have admited to having very limited 40k experince and a very small play area) does not allow this, that is the ONLY one I am aware of.

No, none, 0 not any major tournaments rule it this way. Not Adepticon, Not GW GTS, Not Ard Boyz, Not the European GT, not the Austrailian GT, NONE OF THEM.

I fully agree this is something GW should have put a hard FAQ out on the day after the 5th ed book came out. I also agree that the Pure RAW supports your play. So does the fact that terminators do not have terminator armo, would you insist that your opponent play that way as well?

The reason GW does not FAQ these things is that they wish people like you did not play thier games. Im not kidding here, Ask Jervis yourself at gamesday, I have.

They feel that RAW players hurt the hobby and do not want them around. I disagree with this, and think they should just write logical clear rules, but thats not the game we play.

So do whatever you want, play as your local store plays, but just understand that when you get to regionals your opponets WILL flame you out of thier fire points and you can whine about it all you want but it will not change anything.

Having played 5th edition games in 4 states and over 15 different venues including three indy GT's I have NEVER had a TO or even an oppenent say that you can't fire flamers from a firepoint on a rhino.

bigtmac68 wrote:The reason GW does not FAQ these things is that they wish people like you did not play thier games. Im not kidding here, Ask Jervis yourself at gamesday, I have.

They feel that RAW players hurt the hobby and do not want them around. I disagree with this, and think they should just write logical clear rules, but thats not the game we play.

That's completely crazy on GWs part. How can you run a tournament and not expect people to want a clear, concise ruleset that they can use without interpretation? Don't get me wrong, my gaming group uses a fair amount of RAI/House Rules (the flaming out of fire points being one of them) to avoid some of the issues apparent in RAW, but I hate having to do a full "brief" each time I play someone else to make sure their interpretation of the rules is the same as mine. WTB Ironclad Rules... 23/23/23 with Holofields and Venerable.

Gornall wrote:

bigtmac68 wrote:The reason GW does not FAQ these things is that they wish people like you did not play thier games. Im not kidding here, Ask Jervis yourself at gamesday, I have.

They feel that RAW players hurt the hobby and do not want them around. I disagree with this, and think they should just write logical clear rules, but thats not the game we play.

That's completely crazy on GWs part. How can you run a tournament and not expect people to want a clear, concise ruleset that they can use without interpretation? Don't get me wrong, my gaming group uses a fair amount of RAI/House Rules (the flaming out of fire points being one of them) to avoid some of the issues apparent in RAW, but I hate having to do a full "brief" each time I play someone else to make sure their interpretation of the rules is the same as mine. WTB Ironclad Rules... 23/23/23 with Holofields and Venerable.

I am not supporting thier position. Just read Jervis little blurb in the last few white dwarf issues. You see they ( I dont know if this is a Jervis thing or bigger in GW europe) see competive gaming as a whole as bad for the hobby. So anything that they see as tournament gamer style rules lawyering they dislike. Remember that the very first rule in the book is that there are no rules, just suggestions. They want to encourage casual friendly games and discourage competive gaming.

I think that ignores a huge part of thier market, hell I have dropped 1500 bucks this quarter alone just for armies to play at Adepticon and Ard Boyz. It got me back into the hobby after 4 years out of it.

So you have the problem that the people writng the actual books dont like the very idea of tournaments, yet the events staff are trying to make the tournaments usefull. Compare the number of people who attend Games Day to the number who attend a GT and you can see why GW feels the way they do. You are talking a 100-1 ratio of casual to tournament players. Sure, most tournament players buy a lot more than most non tournament types, but not enough to make it even a drop in the bucket by comparison.

So in reality its not so crazy from GW's perspective. They dont bother with updating FAQ's or making good ones, or decent errata because to 95% of thier customer base they are irrelevant.

You measure vehicle weaponry from the tip of the mounted turret. Last time I checked, Hellhounds, immolators, and everything else place the template away from the vehicle, don't they? Up to 24" away? And if you were to flame right outside the vehicle, the template gets placed at the tip of the muzzle, which still makes it not land on the tank itself, as the muzzle extends past the hull.

And regardless of how you look at it...there's a rule that cannot be broken: You may NEVER template your own stuff. The rules dictate how you interact with your own stuff. Just follow the rules.

Dashofpepper wrote:You measure vehicle weaponry from the tip of the mounted turret. Last time I checked, Hellhounds, immolators, and everything else place the template away from the vehicle, don't they? Up to 24" away? And if you were to flame right outside the vehicle, the template gets placed at the tip of the muzzle, which still makes it not land on the tank itself, as the muzzle extends past the hull.

And regardless of how you look at it...there's a rule that cannot be broken: You may NEVER template your own stuff. The rules dictate how you interact with your own stuff. Just follow the rules.

actually the chem cannon on the bane hound and the flamers on an immolator dont fire at range and are standard put theplate at tip of nozzle weapons. The flamers on the immolator infact do not extrand past the hull. So the base of the template would in fact touch the hull. So immolators cant fire?

edit:

thought of some other fine examples. The combi-flamer on a chaos rhino. The Heavy flamers on a defiler. Both of those would touch the hull if fired. Hell the heavy flamer on a dread would have the tip of the template touching its hand. Ohh how about the arm mounted flamers on a wraithlord? They touch the model as well.

does a hull flamer on a chimera or leman russ extend past the hull fully? That could be another one.

bigtmac68 wrote:I am not supporting thier position. Just read Jervis little blurb in the last few white dwarf issues. You see they ( I dont know if this is a Jervis thing or bigger in GW europe) see competive gaming as a whole as bad for the hobby. So anything that they see as tournament gamer style rules lawyering they dislike. Remember that the very first rule in the book is that there are no rules, just suggestions. They want to encourage casual friendly games and discourage competive gaming.

I think that ignores a huge part of thier market, hell I have dropped 1500 bucks this quarter alone just for armies to play at Adepticon and Ard Boyz. It got me back into the hobby after 4 years out of it.

So you have the problem that the people writng the actual books dont like the very idea of tournaments, yet the events staff are trying to make the tournaments usefull. Compare the number of people who attend Games Day to the number who attend a GT and you can see why GW feels the way they do. You are talking a 100-1 ratio of casual to tournament players. Sure, most tournament players buy a lot more than most non tournament types, but not enough to make it even a drop in the bucket by comparison.

So in reality its not so crazy from GW's perspective. They dont bother with updating FAQ's or making good ones, or decent errata because to 95% of thier customer base they are irrelevant.

That's a pretty good point about the ratio of casual/hardcore and how they do see the game as a beer and pretezels endevour. I just think they could have their cake and eat it too if they wrote a tighter and more consistent ruleset that severely limited the wiggle-room that makes rules-lawyering/confusing rules possible. I'm a fairly casual player (going to play in my first 'Ard Boyz this Saturday), but I still want consistent rules where I don't have to worry about if my opponent interprets them the same way I do. Tighter rules language would make me happy, and goodness knows it'd make the competitive players/TOs happy too. And happy people buy more models.

Dashofpepper wrote:You measure vehicle weaponry from the tip of the mounted turret. Last time I checked, Hellhounds, immolators, and everything else place the template away from the vehicle, don't they? Up to 24" away? And if you were to flame right outside the vehicle, the template gets placed at the tip of the muzzle, which still makes it not land on the tank itself, as the muzzle extends past the hull.

And regardless of how you look at it...there's a rule that cannot be broken: You may NEVER template your own stuff. The rules dictate how you interact with your own stuff. Just follow the rules.

I suggest you familiarize yourself with your potential opponents better.

All of these, using current models (not sure what the new Hellhound box will look like yet), the flame template weapon supplied by GW stops -before- it reaches the edge of the hull. None of the stated models "throw" a template. I would -love- to be able to "throw" a banewolf chemcannon template.

Also, given they are turret mounted in many cases, consider the situations where you want to fire in a direction other than the front (this is specifically in regards to Immolators and turrent mounted heavy flamers on Chimeras). By Dash's interpretation, the fact that its even on a turret is near useless. Poor wording and lack of foresight in a rulebook should not be the primary driver for your ruling, where there is a clear intent that these models should have some practical use.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On that note, this thread has gone from "Battle Report" to "You Make the Call"

bigtmac68 wrote:

Gornall wrote:

bigtmac68 wrote:The reason GW does not FAQ these things is that they wish people like you did not play thier games. Im not kidding here, Ask Jervis yourself at gamesday, I have.

They feel that RAW players hurt the hobby and do not want them around. I disagree with this, and think they should just write logical clear rules, but thats not the game we play.

That's completely crazy on GWs part. How can you run a tournament and not expect people to want a clear, concise ruleset that they can use without interpretation? Don't get me wrong, my gaming group uses a fair amount of RAI/House Rules (the flaming out of fire points being one of them) to avoid some of the issues apparent in RAW, but I hate having to do a full "brief" each time I play someone else to make sure their interpretation of the rules is the same as mine. WTB Ironclad Rules... 23/23/23 with Holofields and Venerable.

I am not supporting thier position. Just read Jervis little blurb in the last few white dwarf issues. You see they ( I dont know if this is a Jervis thing or bigger in GW europe) see competive gaming as a whole as bad for the hobby. So anything that they see as tournament gamer style rules lawyering they dislike. Remember that the very first rule in the book is that there are no rules, just suggestions. They want to encourage casual friendly games and discourage competive gaming.

I think that ignores a huge part of thier market, hell I have dropped 1500 bucks this quarter alone just for armies to play at Adepticon and Ard Boyz. It got me back into the hobby after 4 years out of it.

So you have the problem that the people writng the actual books dont like the very idea of tournaments, yet the events staff are trying to make the tournaments usefull. Compare the number of people who attend Games Day to the number who attend a GT and you can see why GW feels the way they do. You are talking a 100-1 ratio of casual to tournament players. Sure, most tournament players buy a lot more than most non tournament types, but not enough to make it even a drop in the bucket by comparison.

So in reality its not so crazy from GW's perspective. They dont bother with updating FAQ's or making good ones, or decent errata because to 95% of thier customer base they are irrelevant.

The foolishness of their position is that the amount of resources they would have to use to write a solid FAQ every 6 months and publish it on their site would be negligible and well worth it even if it's only for 1% of their user-base. Mass producing models is a pricey undertaking. Publishing a FAQ on the internet is not.

Just ask the guys involved in the INAT FAQ how much time is involved. Read one YMDC thread. It's not as easy as it seems.

I agree that the very clear RAI issues like the Valkyrie or Template Weapons from Fire Points should be very easy to resolve.

However doing it right takes a lot of time due to how many issues there are and how some answers can literally change the balance of the game.

Remember, I totally agree that they should, I would kill a puppy to have a really good and reqularly updated 40k FAQ.

That would solve situations like this one where Dash who plays where no one fires templates out of firepoints does not make it to the regionals, deploy and move his army based on that assumption and then have everyone stare at him like he is insane when he tries to tell his opponent ( who has always played his way everywhere he has ever played) that he cant use his flamers the way his entire army is designed for them to work.

Either way one of them is screwed through no fault of his own. That is why all the indy GT's use the INAT, and I applaud it even though I vehemently dissagree with a number of the rulings in it.

I am glad to play under it, because it makes everything clear.

Just ask the guys involved in the INAT FAQ how much time is involved. Read one YMDC thread. It's not as easy as it seems.

Trying to accurately decipher the intentions of others based on some scraps of poor written rules is difficult, however it takes hardly any effort at all for GW to simply state their own intentions.

The only effort required on their part at all is really to identify the questions that need answering. Half of the FAQs consist of rules changes rather than clarifications anyway. It would take a competent intern all of 10 minutes to slap a PDF together and upload it to the GW website.