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.

My group at least uses NOVA along with BAO usually FAQS because GW is not forthcoming with them really that often so it's a great useful source. My question and it came up with my group was that BAO and NOVA along with Adepticon, don't just work to produce a FAQ themselves that the players can use? Cause most people like me use them as it's a neutral party and they're well made.

Anyway just my thoughts on it, I know some people may disagree but seriously it's so much easier to just say " Our gaming group just uses BAO , NOVA, and Adepticon Faqs when conflicting views we vote".

The FAQs used by the big tournaments in the US are a collaborative effort between the TO's. If you read through you'll find that 95% of the rulings are the same: the places where they differ are after some very heated debates where neither side was convinced enough to give it up.

Many clubs/groups do use these FAQ's. They are a great resource for most of the gaming world.

The big problem is that they are not 'official', and anything that is unofficial opens itself up for disputes and disagreements. If you tell your opponent before the game "Is it ok if we use the NOVA FAQ" and they say no... what are you going to do about it? Claim that their interpretation of a rule when the book is in their hands is against your PDF doc from somewhere on the internet?


Like it or not, this attitude of 'officialness' permeates all wargames - even for ones which have been discontinued for years like BFG, I still find players who prefer to muddle their way through the official printed rules than use a player-created FAQ. It's sad and frustrating, but to some people the rules creators are the One True Source, the Only Acceptable Source of rules, even when the rules are terrible and the company had shown they don't care.

I dunno , it shuts down arguments really easily. It'd be cool if they were updated more often

We enjoy them, but I was more asking to see if there was a resource or a independent party that took it onthemselves to compile it.

It's been tried. Up until 6th edition, the INAT FAQ (originally for Adepticon, but adopted as well by a number of other events) did a pretty good job of plugging the gaps GW didn't bother with.

It was a thankless task, though, with gamers accusing the guys behind it of trying to tell everyone how to play. You know, by offering a free, completely optional FAQ developed through the collaboration of a bunch of extremely experienced players for use by those who wanted to use it...

The INAT seems to have sort of drifted by the wayside during the mess that was 6th edition, though... And I pity anyone trying to write an FAQ or run an event under 7th edition rules...