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.

Except the old Invitational was limited to entry by people who had placed in the top 10 of a circuit event within the past year. Better to call the 7-rounder the Championship and the 3 rounder something else.

The "Best of the Rest" tournament.

Adepticon is too good, I can't not play in all of the events. 11 games in 3 days is just too much. I didn't go this year because D Weapons and Flyers were slowed last year. I heard they fixed that now. I also was so tired and had so little time to just chill that I got so drunk I woke up pissing on the rug. I've really learned to tone my drinking down though because of that so I look back on the experience fondly. Now when I rarely drink it's just one or two. Now I wouldn't play in the Team Tournament because I think it is too taxing so I would probably enjoy the weekend more. I would like to play in something smaller like BFG on saturday but South Florida is a wasteland for gaming and so I will probably never learn the game. Maybe I will go next year, check out the first round of the Team tournament and then head out to see chicago.

I love the FAQ, why don't more people use it? Isn't convenience and clarity or rules worth enough to give up on feeling that certain things aren't to your liking? Of course you won't agree with everything. 40k has way too many rules ambiguitites not to have a comprehensive FAQ. While GW has recently appeared a little more serious(and far too RAW-for-no-good-reason) with Space Wolves FAQ there FAQs are by and large jokes involving mostly questions I have never heard as opposed to frequently heard.

I love the FAQ, why don't more people use it?

Because I like playing Warhammer 40k. I play by the actual rules, not the INAT "houserules" version.

Clearing up certain things which have no clear resolution is one thing, but INAT goes too far and starts rewriting core rules for no other reason. Clear up stuff that needs to be cleared up, but leave the game design to GW, please.

Speaking of which I still can't get over some of the crap rulings they made for the hive tyrant. Two Hive Commanders allow two Outflanking troops, all you needed to do is read the codex to know that...but they decided that the reserves bonus doesn't stack? Why? There's no reason for it other than someone in the council didn't want it to, because they're pretending to be a game designer and thought it was too "broken", probably. The decision to turn the tyrant into an IC makes no sense, either. He's a Monstrous Creature, the tyrant guard's Shieldwall allows him to join the unit like an IC, but he isn't an IC so he can't leave the unit after he's joined it. INAT says "Screw the rules, screw the codex, he's an IC and he can join/leave the unit freely!" Once again, no reason for that ruling, it's very clearly written in the book how it's supposed to be played.

Like I said, if they would just stick to clearing up actual ambiguities in the rules then that would be great, but when they do stuff like that which makes no sense and actually seems to go against what's written just because...it just makes the whole thing look like a joke to me.

I agree with what sidstyler said about INAT and that is the main reason I'm not using it at Bolter Beach.

G

Not that I mean to take a crap all over it or anything, I appreciate the effort that's gone into it...but it's not really an FAQ, it's a completely different way of playing 40k.

Sounds like a whole lot of: "I will support a community FAQ, as long as I can be on the council, and all of the rulings go in my favor... and if I disagree with any rulings I disavow the FAQ and stick to the chaos of browbeating opponent's with RAW arguments during events... Which in turn, did I mention sportsmanship scores should be removed so I can fight about rules without impacting my scores?"

I wish I could sig that but it's too long. Quite apt.

G

No, more like "I will support a community FAQ, so long as all it does is answer questions with no clear resolution or where RAW rulings either make no sense or are unplayable." Which is what an FAQ is for. The INAT does more than that by attempting to rebalance the game however the council sees fit.

You're also full of crap on sportsmanship scoring, too. Nah, let's just blissfully ignore every reasonable argument brought forth that's against them and continue flamebaiting people with your "You just want to be TFG and browbeat people!" bs. As if being able to passive-aggressively mark a guy down on his scores for being a douche during the game, instead of confronting them about it like an adult or even getting the judge involved and having him removed from the event entirely if he doesn't behave, was some kind of favorable resolution anyway.

It's a lose-lose situation. It's been proven to be time and again, and yet for some reason people like you still refuse to see reason and keep insisting that we "need" sports scores to stop bad behavior. IT DOESN'T STOP JACK, all it does is give the guy another weapon with which to dick people with.

I had meant to mention this earlier but it just came to me;

Debit card support in the vendor hall. This year the ATM machine went out in the computer room, which may have diminished vendor sales. The only vendor I'm aware of that accepted debit was GF9....

Also, where was FW this year?

AgeOfEgos wrote:This year the ATM machine went out in the computer room, which may have diminished vendor sales.

It was only out of Friday. Was working fine on Saturday.

If an event has a clearly posted and compiled FAQ, whatever it is or whomever makes it, then it is expected that people who attend that event use that FAQ.

I think that events having thier own FAQs is a good thing because it clears up a TON of disagreements before a single die is rolled and that makes games smoother and prevents arguments. Many rulings are so impacting that whole lists can be invalidated with a single interpretation. Players don't have to risk showing up with an army based around a special rule and finding all his effort nullified on a 4+ toll or the whim of a TO. Having a FAQ beforehand solves all this.

Adepticon has an FAQ, and as much as some may hate it, I feel the FAQ and rulings make the event better. If someone wanted to use a totally different FAQ for thier event, that's cool too. Events with *NO* FAQ available beforehand or are not defaulting to INAT are usually not very good experiences and I see a lot more arguing and in turn a lot more unhappy players.

Railing against the accepted FAQ at an event if you happen to disagree with, is 'browbeating' and is 'unsportsmanlike'. That is why the event organizer made the FAQ and during the event is not the time to fight the power. If you don't like the house rules, don't play at the house.

BBF has the right idea... He may not use INAT, but as long as he has *something* at his events he runs, it will be better overall and I suspect you will see way less arguments and disagreements when a piece of paper settles rulings before the games are played instead of an on-the-spot gutcheck of the closest redshirt or event judge.

And on "I will support a community FAQ, so long as all it does is answer questions with no clear resolution or where RAW rulings either make no sense or are unplayable." This is subjective and there is no way 100% of the population will ever agree that all the RAW RULINGS are fair and correct... And whomever disagrees will continue to rail about how the people who are doing it are wrong and ruining the game and they are the only true person playing by the rules. Basically say what you mean: "I will only support a FAQ that 100% agrees with how I play the game."

And that makes you a poor sport as not everyone everywhere will agree with you. The inability to accept that and accept people may disagree with your interpretations makes one a poor sport.

If you want everyone to play by your rules, then run your own events and make your own FAQ and enforce it. Problem solved.

Sidstyler wrote:No, more like "I will support a community FAQ, so long as all it does is answer questions with no clear resolution or where RAW rulings either make no sense or are unplayable." Which is what an FAQ is for. The INAT does more than that by attempting to rebalance the game however the council sees fit.

While that may be your subjective opinion, it is quite a far ways from the truth. The INAT team does not work to rebalance the game as they see fit nor has any desire to do such things. There are always people who will have an opinion that certain questions may not need to be answered or differ in what the answers should be. While it is fine to have such an opinion, it does not alleviate the fact that these issues have arisen in one form or another. You/your group may interpret the 40K rules set and codices in one way, which again is okay. However, it does not mean that other groups would interpret the rules set the same way. Hell - I've see significant differences within local and regional communities, let alone the national community. Due to this nature, an all encompassing document such as the INAT is bound to "ruffle some feathers" simply due to the fact that some interpretations or rulings may not fit as a person or group believes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AgeOfEgos wrote:I had meant to mention this earlier but it just came to me;

Debit card support in the vendor hall. This year the ATM machine went out in the computer room, which may have diminished vendor sales. The only vendor I'm aware of that accepted debit was GF9....

Also, where was FW this year?

Forge World was out this year because the Chicago Battle Bunker does not carry Forge World any more. They normally carried FW and were historically at AdeptiCon. Even if the Battle Bunker setup at AdeptiCon, they were not going to have FW this year. Now we are trying on getting FW there for 2011. However, the details are still being worked out.

While I don't want this turn into a pro- or anti- INAT thread (go ahead and start one if you want), I will throw in my two cents.

The INAT is simply there to facilitate games, and let people know ahead of time how potentially contentious situations will be resolved by the rules judges.

"Rebalancing" has absolutely nothing to do with it. One of my running jokes on the conference calls (I'm sure the rest of the council is getting sick of it) is to say, "F&^* those (insert codex name here)" after every question we discuss. Because ANY answer given is going to be to the "advantage" or "disadvantage of somebody's army.

When it comes to your suggestion that we only address areas where its unclear...we'd love to. Who gets to decide what's unclear? The INAT, as much as possible, is written to the lowest common denominator...which for us is the relative newbie to the hobby, who's attending a major tournament for the first time. If they're going to find something unclear in the rules...they will.

As to the RAW...I'm a big advocate of the RAW. So is Inq. Malice, btw. In real life, Inq. Malice is an engineer who's in charge of a making sure a chemical factory complies with statutory regulations, and I'm a former technical writer who got into political campaign communications and management, and is now in law school.

The difficulty with using the RAW is simply this...RAW often isn't clear cut. Words can have multiple meanings. In addition...the RAW can also be contradictory, especially when its applied to other RAW interpretation. You can try to see which rule supersedes the other, but in many cases, its not clear. Its easy to state the principle of specific overriding the general, but what happens when you've got a specific rule against another specific rule, or a specific rule impacting against another unrelated general rule? Or a multitude of other possible combinations.

In addition...anyone who wants to argue that the rules are written tightly enough that RAW should be good to resolve almost all rules issues...needs my boot up their rear. I'm sorry if that offends anyone, but working through the INAT for the past few years, I've become even more convinced that GW can't write rules for crap. (Yet I still love this game...go figure).

One last thing...does anyone else here know what single event caused the US GT's to institute sportsmanship scores? There was pretty much a singular cause, if what I've been told has validity (and since it was the person who did it who told me this, and have had it verified by other people who were there, I believe it). No names if you do know it, please...it was a long time ago.

Centurian99 wrote:One last thing...does anyone else here know what single event caused the US GT's to institute sportsmanship scores? There was pretty much a singular cause, if what I've been told has validity (and since it was the person who did it who told me this, and have had it verified by other people who were there, I believe it). No names if you do know it, please...it was a long time ago.

I'm not positive, but I'm thinking there was a heated discussion followed by something close to "If you're gonna $!%$$! me, why don't you $%^# my $^!^", or words to that effect, followed by some "junk" on the table. Again, I don't remember it too well, but the visual stands out as a good reason to implement the sports.

Flagg07 wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:One last thing...does anyone else here know what single event caused the US GT's to institute sportsmanship scores? There was pretty much a singular cause, if what I've been told has validity (and since it was the person who did it who told me this, and have had it verified by other people who were there, I believe it). No names if you do know it, please...it was a long time ago.

I'm not positive, but I'm thinking there was a heated discussion followed by something close to "If you're gonna $!%$$! me, why don't you $%^# my $^!^", or words to that effect, followed by some "junk" on the table. Again, I don't remember it too well, but the visual stands out as a good reason to implement the sports.

Ding ding ding. We have a winner.

Since the implementation of sportsmanship scores, it hasn't happened since, to my knowledge.

Railing against the accepted FAQ at an event if you happen to disagree with, is 'browbeating' and is 'unsportsmanlike'. That is why the event organizer made the FAQ and during the event is not the time to fight the power. If you don't like the house rules, don't play at the house.

I wasn't aware that this thread was Adepticon, and that by complaining about their use of the INAT here, after the event was done, is the same as complaining during the event.

House rules are just fine, if that's the way Adepticon wants to roll, with INAT40k, then so be it. I'm just saying that I probably won't attend if they insist on using it.

And that's another thing too, just because I hate the damn thing doesn't mean I still wouldn't give it a try. The main reason I haven't been to Adepticon yet is just the fact that I can't afford to travel, let alone for a three day event like that. Maybe I'm all wrong about it, who knows.

Basically say what you mean: "I will only support a FAQ that 100% agrees with how I play the game."

And that makes you a poor sport as not everyone everywhere will agree with you. The inability to accept that and accept people may disagree with your interpretations makes one a poor sport.

If you want everyone to play by your rules, then run your own events and make your own FAQ and enforce it. Problem solved.

I thought this thread was titled "suggestions for improving Adepticon". Now I'm being told that if I don't like it I should just run my own event?

I'm sorry guy, do you want people to post their opinions or not?

Fine then. I'll just keep my mouth shut, apparently Adepticon doesn't need or want my suggestions anyway. After all I'm just an donkey-cave browbeating TFG right? Because you know me, you've played games with me a thousand times before and as such have the authority to judge how good of a sportsman I am?

Hey, I'm always glad to get feedback. There's only four AdeptiCon staffers who've posted in this thread (to my recollection) - myself, Inq. Malice, Muhwe, and Matthias.

Inquisitor_Malice wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:I had meant to mention this earlier but it just came to me;

Debit card support in the vendor hall. This year the ATM machine went out in the computer room, which may have diminished vendor sales. The only vendor I'm aware of that accepted debit was GF9....

Also, where was FW this year?

Forge World was out this year because the Chicago Battle Bunker does not carry Forge World any more. They normally carried FW and were historically at AdeptiCon. Even if the Battle Bunker setup at AdeptiCon, they were not going to have FW this year. Now we are trying on getting FW there for 2011. However, the details are still being worked out.

Good news for Adepticon that FW is considering coming, bad news for my wallet. Thanks for the info.

Centurian99 wrote:

Flagg07 wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:One last thing...does anyone else here know what single event caused the US GT's to institute sportsmanship scores? There was pretty much a singular cause, if what I've been told has validity (and since it was the person who did it who told me this, and have had it verified by other people who were there, I believe it). No names if you do know it, please...it was a long time ago.

I'm not positive, but I'm thinking there was a heated discussion followed by something close to "If you're gonna $!%$$! me, why don't you $%^# my $^!^", or words to that effect, followed by some "junk" on the table. Again, I don't remember it too well, but the visual stands out as a good reason to implement the sports.

Ding ding ding. We have a winner.

Since the implementation of sportsmanship scores, it hasn't happened since, to my knowledge.

AHAHAHA

I wouldve given that guy a 12 on sports right there. If youve got the...balls to do that youre ok.

Centurian99 wrote:Hey, I'm always glad to get feedback. There's only four AdeptiCon staffers who've posted in this thread (to my recollection) - myself, Inq. Malice, Muhwe, and Matthias.

There may be only four council members who posted here. Several others of us worked various events over the weekend.

Not all criticism of the INAT is due to hating on it. I think it's a great idea, and even in some of the execution. I know my casual gaming group use it when we play, because none of us want to be rules lawyers during games, and it's a great resource that really does address most of the questions that come up. I think it would be even better if it were even more adopted, if it really did become a universal tournament resource.

As it is, it is kind of billed that way, and kind of billed as the Adepticon FAQ. And, there seems to be resistance to getting people outside Adepticon to adopt it's use. BoLScon, if I have read this thread correctly, aren't going to use it. Several other large tournaments don't use it. And that's a real shame, because that means they have to replicate that work to get their own set of answers, that will probably mesh with at least 80% with the INAT faq.

I kind of see the resistance to adoption as being predicated on two things, mostly from forum chatter. First, there is some disagreement with individual rulings. But that's the smaller issue, and much more easily overcome. The second is this feeling that the Adepticon Council want to keep control of it very insular. There are so many reasons presented to not having more people, from logistics (which is easily solved if you switch technologies), to qualification checks, to the very spurious "people need to be able to work together" (Seriously, we're adults here. You can't tell me that you've had a man-crush on every single co-worker you've ever had, but you manage to put that aside, act professionally, and get work done. That's called being an adult), and any number of other reasons to keep the INAT group small and very back-room-ish.

Add to that the 'we must stand united' front presented that brooks no disention from outsiders, and refuses to disclose things like whether there was some internal disagreement over the actual document produced, and I'm not surprised that other event organizers don't want to adopt it. That sort of attitude doesn't lead to inclusiveness. So, even when having more tournaments adopt the INAT would create a much better national tournament scene, where rules wouldn't change from one event to another, you have this resistance from their organizers to having the Adepticon guys tell them how to run their event.

This leads me back to some prior experience I had with another gaming organization, One World By Night. They're a Vampire: The Masquerade club that grew up rival to White Wolf's official club. And, while they've got more than their share of stupidity and faux-drama, one thing they do very well is manage a network of over 50 individual city's games, spread over four continents (and three different native languages), into a somewhat cohesive whole that manage to come up with unified rules and decisions in a very reasonable timeframe. Each local club has a representative, and issues are posted onto a website, with a discussion system. New topics go up at a set time, and discussion is allowed for a week. At any time during that week, a representative can vote (or even change their vote), and can include a reason for why they voted the way they did (or not). After that week is up, voting is closed, and the results are posted. What's more, it's nice and transparent, and for policy votes (storyline votes are kept hidden for the benefit of the story), anyone can view not only the vote results, but also the reasons that representatives stated they voted as they did.

There's no reason that the INAT - if it really wants to be a national tournament resource, cannot go in this direction. Rather than just being the Adepticon FAQ, it could become a real national buy-in style co-operative. Any tournament organizer could sign up, promise to use the collective decisions at their events, and send a representative to join the discussion and vote on the issues. Now, instead of one small, insular group saying "we did this, and you're welcome to use it too", you have a system that encourages adoption by the various events and tournament circuits, by rewarding adoption with a voice. Not only that, with the right system in place, document production becomes easier, because you can create the rules document on the fly, based on the questions, and responses, in the database. Creating a PDF is simple. Creating an annotated PDF with the reasons for the votes is -also- easy - just a separate set of routines to run.

Of course, this means that the Adepticon council would have less control over the final document - because they're sharing it with other events who are also having a voice. But, if the goal is, as is stated in the foreword, to have a document that means that all attendees know how the rules will be played, none of the specific answers matter as much as simply having an answer at all.

Which comes to the last point I keep hearing raised - how do you know who is "qualified" to be a representative? You allow the member event to pick whoever they want, and trust that each event actually wants a decent event, and will therefore pick someone who understands the rules. How do you know now who is qualified? It's largely people who stepped up and said, "I'm willing to run this event". There's nothing that correlates being a good event organizer means that you know the rules, nor, for that matter, does being a good player mean you know the rules. And, if every event that's part of the GT series actually joins in, you'll have over 30 votes, so if one or two of those people are flakes, the system still functions - there's resiliency in numbers.

I hope that these comments are taken as being constructive, and not as some sort of attack, because that's not my goal. I see the biggest weakness to the INAT, currently, being how it is perceived outside Adepticon. It's a great resource, and it isn't being adopted by a lot of events, and that's really a bit disappointing. But I think that being more open is the only way to get it picked up by more events.

I understand why the INAT FAQ was created as explained here and I appreciate all the time & effort that goes into it. What I can say is that while playing at every Adepticon that has used the INAT FAQ I have only had to use it once. That tells me something. Either the knowledge that the INAT FAQ exists prevents a lot of rules arguments or it's not really needed. To be fair to hte council looking back over my history of tournaments I have attended it seems like for the most part there have been a lot less rules disputes for me when I play at Adepticon so I think there is something to it. That said the INAT FAQ will never be a good substitute for an adequately sized staff of knowledgeable judges. Not everyone is going to read the I INAT FAQ from cover to cover, it's too big. One improvement for this FAQ would be to slim it down; often the same set of answers appear throughout the FAQ being listed under several different codices. Take the various different SM armies for example. My main issue with the INAT FAQ is there are some rulings that don't make sense to me but I won't go into detail here. As a TO I cant expect others to follow a ruling i dont agree with. There are lots of rulings I like & agree with but it just takes one I disagree with to make me not want to use it for any event I run. I will always use it as a reference though.

So in conclusion while I enjoy playing at Adepticon and dont mind using it there I have no desire to use it as an official document at my events. I am overall satisfied with the errata & FAQs released by GW. I wouldn't go so far as to say the council has redefined the game but definitely in my mind some of the rulings don't make sense to me.

G

Black Blow Fly wrote:I understand why the INAT FAQ was created as explained here and I appreciate all the time & effort that goes into it. What I can say is that while playing at every Adepticon that has used the INAT FAQ I have only had to use it once. That tells me something. Either the knowledge that the INAT FAQ exists prevents a lot of rules arguments or it's not really needed. To be fair to hte council looking back over my history of tournaments I have attended it seems like for the most part there have been a lot less rules disputes for me when I play at Adepticon so I think there is something to it. That said the INAT FAQ will never be a good substitute for an adequately sized staff of knowledgeable judges. Not everyone is going to read the I INAT FAQ from cover to cover, it's too big. One improvement for this FAQ would be to slim it down; often the same set of answers appear throughout the FAQ being listed under several different codices. Take the various different SM armies for example. My main issue with the INAT FAQ is there are some rulings that don't make sense to me but I won't go into detail here. As a TO I cant expect others to follow a ruling i dont agree with. There are lots of rulings I like & agree with but it just takes one I disagree with to make me not want to use it for any event I run. I will always use it as a reference though.

So in conclusion while I enjoy playing at Adepticon and dont mind using it there I have no desire to use it as an official document at my events. I am overall satisfied with the errata & FAQs released by GW. I wouldn't go so far as to say the council has redefined the game but definitely in my mind some of the rulings don't make sense to me.

2 things come to mind:
1) The INAT informs the judges, as well as the players - so long as the judges know it, it's less important that the players do (as the purpose is to allow the participants to know how the judges will rule beforehand).
2) If there are certain specific rulings you disagree with, you can always change those specific rulings for your events, if you wanted as comprehensive a FAQ as a resource.

As long as you have a FAQ...Nothing is worse than going to a tourney to get the 'we don't play by that rule here' response to a rules argument (Not in so many words, but that's the gist of what the argument is)...

I'm posting the following pretty much specifically to disagree with Black Blow Fly about the INAT FAQ.

The major problem with a comprehensive is that all of the alternatives are worse.

What's worse than a comprehensive FAQ?
--Having two judges at an event that size issue contradictory rulings.
--Having two judges at an event that size issue contradictory rulings to the same player.
--Having a player show up to the event expecting a rule to work one way and have it ruled the other way during play.
--Not having a comprehensive FAQ and listening to people complain about the absence of a comprehensive FAQ because they don't know how something will be ruled.

Do you want better educated judges? A comprehensive FAQ is an excellent tool for educating judges and making sure that they're rulings will all agree, and it has the added benefit of allowing the tournament players to find out what those rulings will be ahead of time. If a judge doesn't have time to read a comprehensive FAQ, how is the judge supposed to have time to stay "educated"?

And if it makes sense to distribute a comprehensive FAQ to your judges to make sure that they agree on the important issues that you've found, it only makes sense to distribute that same FAQ to the players as well to avoid the unpleasant surprises.

Given a hundred and twenty people for one of the events who would otherwise be told "Ask your tournament organizer." if they had a rules question, how is the INAT FAQ not the least possible evil? If the organization staff is simply keeping track of the questions and writing down their answers in order to stay consistent and avoid GW Redshirt syndrome, then you'll end up with a document the size of the INAT FAQ anyway. And frankly, if any of the questions to the FAQ were "The rules are unclear, ask your opponent", I can't express how odious and counterproductive that would be.

When and where I grew up, people didn't lock their front door and didn't lock their card doors because there wasn't any crime. But it would it would have been terribly naive for someone from that area to visit Chicago and complain about the unnecessary locks that everyone has on their doors. I don't see any difference between that situation and complaining that a tournament's FAQ is too comprehensive or tries to change too much because it's more than some other tournament does.

Sidstyler wrote:

I love the FAQ, why don't more people use it?

Because I like playing Warhammer 40k. I play by the actual rules, not the INAT "houserules" version.

Clearing up certain things which have no clear resolution is one thing, but INAT goes too far and starts rewriting core rules for no other reason. Clear up stuff that needs to be cleared up, but leave the game design to GW, please.

Speaking of which I still can't get over some of the crap rulings they made for the hive tyrant. Two Hive Commanders allow two Outflanking troops, all you needed to do is read the codex to know that...but they decided that the reserves bonus doesn't stack? Why? There's no reason for it other than someone in the council didn't want it to, because they're pretending to be a game designer and thought it was too "broken", probably. The decision to turn the tyrant into an IC makes no sense, either. He's a Monstrous Creature, the tyrant guard's Shieldwall allows him to join the unit like an IC, but he isn't an IC so he can't leave the unit after he's joined it. INAT says "Screw the rules, screw the codex, he's an IC and he can join/leave the unit freely!" Once again, no reason for that ruling, it's very clearly written in the book how it's supposed to be played.

Like I said, if they would just stick to clearing up actual ambiguities in the rules then that would be great, but when they do stuff like that which makes no sense and actually seems to go against what's written just because...it just makes the whole thing look like a joke to me.

This 'argument' has been thrown about so many times, but it is founded on a complete fallacy...that there is one set of 40K rules that all players agree upon and somehow the INAT is ruling against this 'true' set of rules.

This is a fallacy because each person reads the rules for the game and comes up with their own interpretation of what those rules mean. The INAT only addresses situations where a sizeable amount of players have a difference in opinion on what the rules say or how to play the game in a certain situation, period.

So you don't think you play with 'house rules' perhaps, but the fact is, you do. Your interpretation of the rules is your own personal set of house rules just like my own personal interpretation of the rules is my own personal set of house rules. When we play a game together all the rules we agree on work just fine, but as soon as we hit a place where our house rules disagree, then we have an issue that has to be resolved.

Again, the INAT doesn't make rulings on issues that aren't actually divisive situations. If you think you've identified a situation that we've ruled on that goes wildly against how most people play the game send me a PM and I'll do my best to set up as much of an unbiased poll as I can in the YMTC forum and if a huge amount of people (like 70% or more) say that they play the game opposite from how we've ruled on it in the INAT, I can almost guarantee that I'll get the ruling reversed in the next update.

Obviously internet polls aren't the be all and end all of how people are actually playing, but it's certainly a useful tool to see if we're WAY off on a ruling. But if the votes are anywhere in the 'split' range of roughly 31-69%, then you have to accept that people just play the game differently!

You bring up the Hive Tyrant's +1 reserve rule and that it is clear as day in the codex. You do know that the exact same rule is in the Imperial Guard codex and it is ruled exactly the same as we ruled on it for the Tyranids, right? If you don't see how GW ruling on the same rule in the IG codex can cause a huge chunk of players to think that it shouldn't stack then I don't know what to tell you. People play it differently. I understand you don't like or agree with our ruling, but it is a ruling that needs to be made because people play it differently, and there is a strong reasoning for making the ruling as we did. Whether or not we this ruling helped to 'balanced' the Tyranids was never, ever even brought up.


But I understand. A whole lot of people truly believe that their interpretation of the rules is the 'right' one and when a fan-made document disagrees with their opinion it can be frustrating. But like I've always said, no one stands over your table and makes you play with all the INAT rulings in a game. If you're playing with a friendly guy who also disagrees with the INAT rulings or just doesn't care, then you're going to play the game the way YOU GUYS want to play it.

The INAT is only there to make sure if there is a dispute between you two that requires a judge, you know how the judge is going to rule on it instead of essentially 'flipping a coin' everytime you ask for a judge's ruling.

Black Blow Fly wrote:I understand why the INAT FAQ was created as explained here and I appreciate all the time & effort that goes into it. What I can say is that while playing at every Adepticon that has used the INAT FAQ I have only had to use it once. That tells me something. Either the knowledge that the INAT FAQ exists prevents a lot of rules arguments or it's not really needed. To be fair to hte council looking back over my history of tournaments I have attended it seems like for the most part there have been a lot less rules disputes for me when I play at Adepticon so I think there is something to it. That said the INAT FAQ will never be a good substitute for an adequately sized staff of knowledgeable judges. Not everyone is going to read the I INAT FAQ from cover to cover, it's too big. One improvement for this FAQ would be to slim it down; often the same set of answers appear throughout the FAQ being listed under several different codices. Take the various different SM armies for example. My main issue with the INAT FAQ is there are some rulings that don't make sense to me but I won't go into detail here. As a TO I cant expect others to follow a ruling i dont agree with. There are lots of rulings I like & agree with but it just takes one I disagree with to make me not want to use it for any event I run. I will always use it as a reference though.

So in conclusion while I enjoy playing at Adepticon and dont mind using it there I have no desire to use it as an official document at my events. I am overall satisfied with the errata & FAQs released by GW. I wouldn't go so far as to say the council has redefined the game but definitely in my mind some of the rulings don't make sense to me.

G

BBF,

In all the games I've played at Adepticon, I can't even think of one where I actually needed to reference the INAT FAQ. Because for the most part, if someone really wants to play differently then we've ruled, I usually just shrug and let 'em do it. I really don't care enough to even bother arguing.

But here's the thing, like I've said to many people...if you never have to call a judge over to your games, then you're not who the INAT is for. The INAT is for people who are having a bad game and arguing about a rule to the point that they need a judge to stop by. The INAT is therefore kind of like a safety net to let players know that if a judge does get called over, you know how they're going to rule. And if you do know the ruling is in the INAT in the chance that the judge screws up and gets his ruling wrong, you have something to tell him to go check instead of just being hung out to dry by some crazy judge's opinion.

And as a tournament organizer you say that you can't utilize a document that has rulings you don't agree with...but the problem with that idea is that truthfully, the only FAQ any person is going to agree with 100% of the rulings is one that they write themselves. Anytime a FAQ is written by another person the very nature of written interpretation means that you're going to disagree.

I highly doubt that you don't disagree with some of GW's rulings in their FAQs, but my guess is that you still would stand behind them for your tournament. Now obviously that's a bit different because it is put out by the company that makes the game, but your original point was strictly that you can't stand behind a FAQ that has rulings you disagree with, when obviously as a base statement it's ridiculous because you're going to disagree some rulings in every FAQ that you don't write yourself.

And also, if there are some rulings in the INAT FAQ you don't care for, why not just use the FAQ in general and then publish which rulings will be different at your tournament? Isn't it better to have 95% of the issues that you do agree with officially covered in your tournament so that your attendees know what answer they're getting when they call over a judge?


Finally, you complain about its size and repetition of questions. The whole point of the INAT is that it is essentially a resource for tournament judges. The way it is organized is such that you first find what page number in the codex or rulebook your question is on and THEN that allows you to find the ruling in the INAT.

You point out that the same question is answered in each SM codex section, but that is intentionally done so players can simply print out the section for THEIR codex (if they want) and they'll have all the rulings for their codex...not to mention that many rules between the different marine codexes are different and therefore require slightly different answers. If we went with a generic 'all marines' section in the INAT, it would become really, really confusing to give an answer like: 'this rule applies to the Space Wolves, Blood Angels and SM Codex, but not to the Black Templars or Dark Angels'.

The fact is, each codex is a different army and needs to be treated separately in order to make things clear. We're trying to *improve* on the way GW does FAQs which is basically to only answer a question in one FAQ and leave everyone guessing whether or not that same ruling applies to a similar situation in another codex. That is the WRONG way to do FAQs.

And yes our document is long when taken all together, but if you break it up codex by codex it really isn't very bad at all. But we think having a single document that is completely hyperlinked together makes for a much more cohesive package and still allows players who only want to print out THEIR codex section to do so.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Redbeard wrote:
I hope that these comments are taken as being constructive, and not as some sort of attack, because that's not my goal. I see the biggest weakness to the INAT, currently, being how it is perceived outside Adepticon. It's a great resource, and it isn't being adopted by a lot of events, and that's really a bit disappointing. But I think that being more open is the only way to get it picked up by more events.

The INAT FAQ is used by a number of major tournaments and that number has continued to grow each year and will likely to continue to grow as long we continue to put the effort into updating it properly. As for BoLScon not using the INAT, I wouldn't necessarily count on that fact. And even more tournaments use the FAQ and just change a few rulings they don't like...which is just as good IMHO, because it is a fan resource, not THE answers.

By any standard, I think we can safely claim that the INAT FAQ is the most widely accepted fan-made FAQ document for 40K ever produced, which is not bad for only being on the scene for 3 years now considering the vastly different opinions players and tournament organizers have about W40K.

But you are right, in that we have always wanted to make the production of the INAT spread across many major tournaments and we are moving towards that goal this year.

The goal was never to be insular, to 'control' the rulings. As I've said before, many people have said in the past: 'why doesn't someone just make a comprehensive fan FAQ and I'd use it!' And I'd been a part of least two other FAQ attempts to do just that and both had failed miserably because they were being created amongst too many people, and once those people started to get bored with the amount of work it took and the amount of arguing involved, the project simply started to fall apart over time.

So I wrote the FAQ because I could, and I was sick of it just not getting done. And when it came to make the rulings for the FAQ, I wasn't interested in just making it a 'yakFAQ', so we needed people to vote on the rulings, so we used the tournament organizers at Adepticon (not the least because Hank and Jeff asked me to help by writing the best FAQ that could be used for Adepticon).

And this format worked, in that it allowed, and still allows us to produce regular updates for the FAQ. We are absolutely not against including others in the process and again, we are doing exactly that right now, but we also are wary to screw up the dynamic we have that allows us to make the updates happen as that would be the worst possible outcome.

Everything you posted about that Vampire document sounds fantastic and I would love to eventually consider something exactly like that for the INAT. However, it requires someone to spearhead such a transition with the know-how and willingness to implement all of that. I certainly don't have the technical know-how to do it and since I'm responsible for about 90-95% of the actual workload of the INAT FAQ, in order to make a change like that someone would have to step up and do all of that and be willing to maintain it. Beyond that, if the system pulls from the database to make the FAQ, you'd have to frontload all the current information for the FAQ into the system just to be able to print the current document we have.


The thing is, even if the system as you describe it came to past, I personally don't think it would mitigate the biggest issue. I *do* think that the #1 reason most TOs don't use the INAT FAQ in their event is because they disagree with a number of the rulings. Allowing those TOs to have a single vote in a giant 30-man council isn't going to mitigate that issue at all. Those TOs are still going to basically say, 'Those guys are all wrong and my one vote isn't going to change anything so I'm just not going to use the FAQ or bother with their 'council''.

I've seen it time and time and time again, people think THEY are right about the rules and they just can't stand the thought that some other gamer is telling them 'how to play' when they disagree with it.

But even so, I would love for the creation of the INAT to be more automated if that was possible. I'm sure it is, but it certainly isn't going to be me that does it (I don't have the knowledge) and we have to be absolutely sure it would work for us before we could possibly consider implementing it. So if someone wanted to take the time and effort to set up a proof-of-concept site to show off a system we could be using I know I'd like to see it.

Nicely put yak & informative as well.

G

The one suggestion that I had was about the Missions.

The primers are nice but given the changes (sometimes not so little ones) and the complexity, I would like to see the final wordings of the missions posted prior to the event. I don't necessarily need to see which of the missions were selected, but knowing how the scenarios are going to be worded the day of would help a lot.

This gives people time to read and play them. It is a BIG difference in the time it takes to play a game when you've played the mission before. Effectively it can take up to 15minutes out of the Setup/Deployment phase of the game if both sides have read the mission and done a little pregame tactical discussion, prior to the day of the event. And in a tournament game, that 15minutes can often determines if you get that last turn in or not.

Things I would not change:

In the TT, I really liked the policy of no new turn after the 15:00min remaining warning went out. It eliminated one of the issues I have biggest problem with in tournaments, the 5minute argument of "do we have enough time for both sides?". With the clock posted at the front of the hall, everyone gets very clear guidelines on which they have to manage their time with.


Later,
WR

yakface wrote:The fact is, each codex is a different army and needs to be treated separately in order to make things clear. We're trying to *improve* on the way GW does FAQs which is basically to only answer a question in one FAQ and leave everyone guessing whether or not that same ruling applies to a similar situation in another codex. That is the WRONG way to do FAQs.

agreed, repeating the answer for every book where it's appropriate is the best way. some people don't have the time/inclination to read *ALL* the faqs and may miss the ruling on the same question if it's not listed for their specific army. also, there's a certain gwuy who hangs out in the YMDC forum who insists that an answer to the exact same question in another codex's faq doesn't apply to a separate codex and will argue the point to death. having the answer in each applicable codex faq (regardless of how many times it comes up) stops those kinds of gwuys in there tracks if they sign up for an event using the faq.