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.

Gwar! wrote:

Also, a question for you or anyone else who feels the same way: Would you like the INAT FAQ better if they did not change the rulings, but marked [Rules Change] in every place where it currently says [Clarification]?

Yes, it would then at least be honest.

No, it would be incorrect.


I've said this before and I guess I need to say it again...I really need to put this information into the 'afterward' of the INAT document, so I guess it is my bad that I keep having to repeat myself.


When we put that a ruling is a 'clarification' all it means is that, in the opinion of the council members, there is at least one or more possible ways to interpret the rules for that specific instance, and as such there are differing ways for players to interpret how to play it.

Therefore, we are making a 'clarification' on how to play that issue...even if that involves sometimes 'making up' a rule in order to have things make sense.

So when any one individual person thinks one of our 'clarifications' is actually a 'rules change'...guess what? You're a person who is interpreting the rules version 'A', when we're ruling based on the idea of the rules version 'B'.

So if we were to put 'rules change' instead of clarification, while you might then be saying, okay now at least they're being honest and calling this a 'rules change' like it is, other players are now thinking, what the heck, that's not a 'rules change' that's the 'RAW' as far as I can tell.


I can tell you from experience that I have literally had this happen...where one person writes to me and says I should change a ruling to call it a 'rules change', while another person writes to me and says it should actually be 'RAW'.


Can everyone possibly understand that?

[RAW] means we think (every member of the council) that there is only one way to interpret the rules in that situation.

[rules change] means that we think (every member of the council) that there is only one way to interpret the rules in that situation but we're ruling against those rules...usually because the vast majority of players don't play the way the RAW indicate or in cases of extreme absurdity.

[clarification] means that not every member of the council can agree that there is only one way to interpret the rules in this case...so if there seems to be even a small margin of players out there who can possibly have a different interpretation of the rules in this case, then the ruling by our definition is going to be a 'clarification'.


So let's take the example of a Manticore firing D3 barrage blasts...some people want to think that since the RAW for barrage weapons only specifies that it works when a unit made up of multiple models is firing barrage weapons, that it doesn't apply to a single Manticore firing multiple blasts.

And you know what? You're right. By the RAW it doesn't apply. But you know what else? The rules don't tell you how to play with a single model firing multiple barrage weapons.

Can you default back to the rules for firing regular blast weapons? Sure you can, but that's not the 'RAW'...the rules as written should tell us what to do when a single model fires multiple barrage blasts, but they don't.

So there are two major ways players can tend to interpret this situation...neither of which is actually the RAW.

One is to use the multiple barrage rules, which also follows how GW rules with the Eldar Tempest Launcher.

The second way is to default back to the basic blast rules and resolve the weapon like that.

Both work and both would be 'clarifications' as neither is the 'RAW'.


We've obviously decided to go with the first solution, but it is most definitely a [clarification] by our standards.


So is our system perfect? Of course not. I'm sure there is some stuff that should be labeled one thing when it is labeled another, but the system is based on some fundamental principles and we try our best to stick to them when labeling each ruling.

The next time you think one of our 'clarifications' should be labeled a 'rules change' (or even 'RAW') perhaps take a moment and consider if possibly anyone else could interpret the rules for that situation a different way. If the answer could possibly be yes, then 'clarification' is the right label for that ruling.

I am look forward every year to Adepticon, and I for one don't care which way they rule in the INAT faq. I am simply grateful they put in the effort to build a document. They didn't have to, it's a huge effort, just like Adepticon itself. Games Workshop should be ashamed of the way they support the rules system of their own games, and not just 40K.

I don't agree with every ruling in the INAT faq, but I'll print it out, study it and have a copy with me at Adepticon. I'll follow the rules to the best of my ability whether I like them or not. Without a standard ruleset, my weekend could be ruined by any player with a cockeyed rules belief and a bad attitude. It could still happen even with the faq, but it's less likely if I know my rulebook and the INAT document.

All you armchair generals that gnash your teeth and disrespect the INAT faq or the writers disgust me. Yakface and ruling council may need to restrain themselves from lashing out, but I don't. The naysayers have every right to their opinion and they can certainly choose not to use the FAQ, but vitriolic attacks are over the top and hurtful. I hope I never have to play any of you. The original poster may think he has taken the high road, but I regard this thread as insulting and belittling in the extreme. If your local game store has an issue with using the INAT faq, instead of fixing the faq, maybe you should work on your gaming community. If they laughed you out of the store I would look for another store.

imweasel wrote:

muwhe wrote:May I ask what reason you are referencing here? Was it the fact that the UK GT FAQ had called it that way, and we aligned our ruling to match given the GW Orc FAQ was pending? Or the fact that we personally heard it from the author of the codex, at AdeptiCon in conjunction with his attendance that year? Which one is the issue?

All the above and then some. It would be nice to see some consistency in the inat faq, instead of the flip flopping that goes on.

Change something in the inat faq due to gw changing a faq? Sure.

Changing something because they 'might'? No way in hell.

If further published information from gw (and not more fan based stuff) comes out, then of course change it based on that information.

Grow a pair, make rulings and stand by them.

So put out rulings and stick with them even if we later feel that they're wrong?

I'm sorry, but one of the most frustrating things for me is when GW puts out a FAQ answer that is so clearly disruptive for the game and then they take aeons to ever change it...I can't stand that and I certainly wouldn't want to be part of any fan-made FAQ effort that didn't regularly take a look at its rulings based on user feedback and consider: 'Is this the right ruling or do we possibly need to reverse it?'

Is there something terribly wrong with having the Deffrolla played the same way in both the UKGTs and in American tournaments that use the INAT?

Its not like 90% of players think that the Deff Rolla should work during a ram...this has always been a heavily split issue, so regardless of which way we ruled there is going to be a lot of angry players. But in this particular case we decided it was a good idea to try to have consistency between us and the UKGT house rules, how could that possibly be a bad thing?

Since then we've stuck with the ruling even though the people who disagree with it do so very strongly...so how have we not stuck by our ruling?

Again, we're not going to put something out and then stick with it come hell and high water. If we feel like we muffed a ruling then we're going to fix it, and really why would you not want that?



And I'll say this point yet again for everyone who says the INAT is too full of 'wrong' rulings to use:

The document exists and is open for all to copy and build off-of. If you really think there is one simple way to write all the rulings that every player will instantly see and say "Gee this is waaay better than the INAT's rulings", then why the heck don't you put it out?

All the tools you need are right there!

But the truth is, if you put out the INAT but with your rulings, you and many other players may now say 'hell yeah, this is the FAQ we were looking for!' But all of a sudden you're going to get a literal firestorm from all the players who don't agree with your rulings.

You'll be the ones getting emails and forum posts from people saying 'Your FAQ is crap because your rulings suck and you have no common sense', etc, etc, etc.

The one great truth is that you can't please all the people all the time, and this is especially true when you're dealing with potential interpretations of the written word. Different people will always glean different meanings from the same words.

yakface wrote:So put out rulings and stick with them even if we later feel that they're wrong?

What in the world would make you 'later feel that they're wrong'? Did some sort of new gw published information come out? If so, fine. If not, then stick to your rulings.

yakface wrote:I'm sorry, but one of the most frustrating things for me is when GW puts out a FAQ answer that is so clearly disruptive for the game and then they take aeons to ever change it...I can't stand that and I certainly wouldn't want to be part of any fan-made FAQ effort that didn't regularly take a look at its rulings based on user feedback and consider: 'Is this the right ruling or do we possibly need to reverse it?'

Constantly second guessing yourselves is not going to accomplish anything. Being consistent is important, not changing your mind based on which way the 'political winds' are blowing. And to throw more gas on the fire, completely reversing an 'inat ruling' based on not much else than simply second guessing yourself is not much better, regardless of much less time it takes to get done.

yakface wrote:Is there something terribly wrong with having the Deffrolla played the same way in both the UKGTs and in American tournaments that use the INAT?

So if the UK switches it, are you going to switch it? How about the rest of the world? Consistency. The inat lacks it.

yakface wrote:Its not like 90% of players think that the Deff Rolla should work during a ram...this has always been a heavily split issue, so regardless of which way we ruled there is going to be a lot of angry players. But in this particular case we decided it was a good idea to try to have consistency between us and the UKGT house rules, how could that possibly be a bad thing?

Why in the world are you so worried about what the players think? It sounds like you are trying to win a popularity contest rather than hammering out a set of rules.

That's the bad thing.

yakface wrote:Since then we've stuck with the ruling even though the people who disagree with it do so very strongly...so how have we not stuck by our ruling?

Yes. Let's totally ignore the fact you have already changed your mind and left it entirely open to do so again. Without any changes in the rules or faq's. Ya. That's sticking it out all right. It's that consistency thing. Or more importantly, the lack thereof.

yakface wrote:Again, we're not going to put something out and then stick with it come hell and high water. If we feel like we muffed a ruling then we're going to fix it, and really why would you not want that?

No one is perfect. I am not asking you to be perfect, nor is anyone else. But really, did you feel like you muffed the deff rolla ruling originally? And what are you basing that reversal on? A different fan based doc? An opinion poll? Come on, really.

yakface wrote:And I'll say this point yet again for everyone who says the INAT is too full of 'wrong' rulings to use:

The document exists and is open for all to copy and build off-of. If you really think there is one simple way to write all the rulings that every player will instantly see and say "Gee this is waaay better than the INAT's rulings", then why the heck don't you put it out?

We all know it's not going to work that way. We all know that everyone is not going to be pleased.

What players want is someone to make a sound decision and stick to it and not later on completely reverse their decision because someone broke wind.

yakface wrote:All the tools you need are right there!

Obviously not, considering how many items have changed in the inat faq over the years.

yakface wrote:But the truth is, if you put out the INAT but with your rulings, you and many other players may now say 'hell yeah, this is the FAQ we were looking for!' But all of a sudden you're going to get a literal firestorm from all the players who don't agree with your rulings.

Just fyi, but the kitchen is hot. STOP WORRYING ABOUT THE POPULARITY CONTEST.

yakface wrote:You'll be the ones getting emails and forum posts from people saying 'Your FAQ is crap because your rulings suck and you have no common sense', etc, etc, etc.

The one great truth is that you can't please all the people all the time, and this is especially true when you're dealing with potential interpretations of the written word. Different people will always glean different meanings from the same words.

I am not asking that you please all the people all the time. That's a given that it's not going to happen. I am asking for some consistency. If gw publicly documents additional information that would change something, do so. If not, why in the world do you keep on second guessing? That's the part that makes zero sense.

If only this could happen.
40k would become more of a game and less of a debate.

lordrevege wrote:If only this could happen.
40k would become more of a game and less of a debate.

It did happen and this thread is a huge debate.