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.

When you have a bunch of gamers from all over the North America and beyond it is important to all be on the same page. You do not realize that your local area plays certain rules one way, and other areas play them another.

Two years ago at my first Adepticon I ran into all kinds of rules issues that could not be solved that easily. For example I ended up playing a guy from Toronto who would not let me shoot at his landspeeder because I could not see its base. Where I play you target the vehicle, so I am glad for the clarifications so we both know what the answer is.

Some of those rules seem very basic but it is important to have them. A lot of those rules have been debated in YMTC so the answer might seem obvious to you, but there is reason for clarification. Especially in an event like the Gladiator that is no comp/sportsmanship people will try to get away with as much as possible.

For Example:

ColonelEllios wrote:

stelek wrote:BA.26C.04 – Q: Do Inquisitorial Mystics allow free
shots at units arriving by Drop Pod?
A: Yes. The shooting is resolved after the Drop Pod lands
and the passengers disembark. Either the Drop Pod or
the disembarked unit may be the targeted, but not both
[rules change].

Why are you overriding the GW rules in this instance? Both are seperate units, and eligible to be shot at.

This is exactly the type of stuff I am trying to point out. Meddling with and gimping units that hardly need to be gimped.

Space Marine Drop Pods do not deep strike at all. But all of the codexes afterwards they do deep strike so this rule brings them in line with the other codexes.

stelek wrote:CSM.25B.01 – Q: Do bike models with the Mark of
Tzeentch gain +1 to the invulnerable save
provided by turbo-boosting?
A: Yes [clarification].

Is this clarified for the stupid people? +1 to invulnerable saves needs to be clarified...why?

You need to read the UK GTs ruling on the matter to see why it needs to be clarified.

I could go on…but you get the point.


Stelek, for someone who always says that they get cheated on in GTs, it would seem that you would know the reasons for these clarification.

[

Moz wrote:
Stelek: A lot of the points you have a problem with being included are straight out of the YMDC section. Yes, people really argue about all of this crap. Can it hurt to have it clarified? Do we need a point by point run down of things you think shouldn't be clarified?

There are alot of things not clarified in the FAQ. Given this fact and that the FAQ answers some questions with a [Rules Change], well I must wonder why.

Moz wrote:
I can't respond for every nitpick, but a lot of it is just misinformed rage at nothing. The following as examples:

Woah, misinformed? Rage? What are you talking about?

Moz wrote:
-Anything dealing with mystics deserves clarification. Particularly when dealing with drop pod assault.

How is it currently confusing? Anything deep strikes, you can shoot it. Why does this need clarification?

Moz wrote:
-Kharn's psychic power nullification transfers to his unit because selecting his unit for psychic attack is essentially selecting Kharn as well, which nullifies the power. No transfer of ability is necessary.

It IS a transfer of ability. Since you ignored the comments about the Canoness, I can only assume you'd rather not deal with the reality that this is not a 'fair' rule since it is only applied to ONE army. Players do not like that.

Moz wrote:
-Psycannon rules state that 'only armor saves may be taken', so clarifying for cover saves is fine.

Sure, but he doesn't actually clarify that!

Moz wrote:
-Callidus has the C'tan phase sword, which sounds a lot like a CCW to me. So the question is relevant to the # of attacks.

Again, ignoring the facts I pointed out is quite handy. You cannot gain +1 attack without a CCW/Pistol combo, and the shredder is an assault weapon.

You know, before arguing with me you should know the rules I clearly reference.

Moz wrote:
-People have claimed that open topped status of drop pods allowed for assault from them on the turn they disembark. This clarification is necessary.

Indeed. It is. I've never seen such a person in real life or ever had the question posed but in a theoryhammer debate on the internet.

Seems like it's clarifying for the donkey-caves who'd try to rules lawyer this. You can't stop ALL of them unless you clarify EVERYTHING, which this FAQ does not do.

Moz wrote:
-Heavy weapon team basing is also a big gray area. Clarification is welcome.

Sorry, how is it 'grey'? There are two gunners per stand, on the stand. Since the only real problem occurs in close combat, and that is not addressed--what's the point of clarifying 10% of the problem and not the other, more immediate, 90%?

Moz wrote:
-No Retreat! applies to all units who are immune to morale checks or *automatically pass them for some reason*.

Shrug. If it's in the rulebook, why does it need to be clarified?

Moz wrote:
-Assigning unit ownership to downed necrons is a big change that is really just plain necessary for monolith teleportation. Clarification is welcome.

Since it's covered in the rules, what are we clarifying? That what the rules say is what we should do? Excellent FAQ.

Moz wrote:
-Tank shocks that hit equal AV stop 1" away from the target. Why would you expect the Deffrolla to work if you can't contact the target model?

Phil Kelly wrote the rules so if you make a DOG attack, you take +D6 hits. This is changing the rule in the Codex. Phil is aware of the rule regarding DOG, yet he put it in anyway. Why are you meddling? Was his intent somehow not clear enough? It feels like the rule was deemed too powerful and was removed. Well, as soon as you put your name on the Codex you too can FAQ it and change it. Till then, you should stop with the mini-nerfs.

Moz wrote:
-Fear of the darkness doesn't have a specified 'range' as is defined for weapons and other powers. It does have an area of effect, and doubling that with the rod of hellfire does constitute a rules change.

Please. This is nitpicking in the extreme. I've never seen a player say anything but it has a 12" range and hood doubles it. Saying it's a rules change is baloney, I see it all the time at GW GT's.

Moz wrote:
-Drones fire as part of the vehicle they are attached to. They are treated as passengers only for disembarking and vehicle damage.

So this invalidates what I said, how?

Moz wrote:
-Tau Wargear restricts taking duplicate items, drones are wargear. The clarification is necessary and welcomed.

Yet the drone controller entry explicitly and clearly removes that restriction. The clarification, like most of the rest, seems aimed entirely at stupid people who refuse to accept the spirit of the game and want to beat their opponent with rules.

These are the people that should be asked to leave tournaments and not return--and if you think this FAQ covers even 25% of the BS out there, you are sorely mistaken. You cannot FAQ the Warhammer system like this, you are making judgment calls on what designers thought 5 years ago!

Ellios, despite being told not to reply to you, I'll give you a fair shot.

I've played at alot of GW events, with alot of GW designers, and I do my fair share of 'stuff' involving GW. Psycannons don't mention cover saves because the guys that wrote the Codex (and the game) hold solid that only flamer templates deny cover saves. It's a basic premise from their viewpoint. Having had that explained to me, I can "understand" what it was they were saying about the psycannon rule being fine as is--why explain what is in the main rules?

Since I've been playing against GK, I've never:

A) Had a GK player tell me I can't take cover saves from a Psycannon.
B) Tried to take cover saves against Incinerator hits.
C) Ever had a problem resolving A or B.

Maybe you run into alot of asshats, or maybe Yakface does, or someone on the 'council' does--but since GK were released I've never had this come up at GT's or FLGS.

Makes me wonder what kind of gaming environment the Indy's have become.

Stelek, you're not getting it.

This FAQ isn't for you, it's for all the other players in the world who aren't as clever as you are and do ask lots of stupid questions.

And, pray tell, how would basing a FAQ off of RAW, create an unworkable FAQ, when you outline GW's RAW policy (codex overrides rulebook, etc) and the "Permissive" nature of the 40k rules as precedents for resolving rule ambiguity (such as tank shock into a combat)...

Are you serious? How many examples of how pure RAW doesn't always work. Do you even read half the crap brought up in YMDC?

Capt K

CaptKaruthors wrote:

And, pray tell, how would basing a FAQ off of RAW, create an unworkable FAQ, when you outline GW's RAW policy (codex overrides rulebook, etc) and the "Permissive" nature of the 40k rules as precedents for resolving rule ambiguity (such as tank shock into a combat)...

Are you serious? How many examples of how pure RAW doesn't always work do you need? Do you even read half the crap brought up in YMDC?

Capt K

I don't there any vehicles that DS besides skimmers

Sentinels Deep Strike as well.


Regardless, this is a very good FAQ. Also of note, we in my group play that Psycannons do not ignore cover saves, unlike the incinerators which explicitly state that they ignore both cover and invulnerable.

I will be introducing this FAQ in my shop (I work for Gee-Dub) and using it as a basis for argument avoidance and problem solving where the Official FAQ's don't already cover.


Very good work, guys.

Stelek wrote:

Moz wrote:
-Callidus has the C'tan phase sword, which sounds a lot like a CCW to me. So the question is relevant to the # of attacks.

Again, ignoring the facts I pointed out is quite handy. You cannot gain +1 attack without a CCW/Pistol combo, and the shredder is an assault weapon.

You know, before arguing with me you should know the rules I clearly reference.

While I agree with some of your points Stelek, I couldn't help but laugh at the response above. P. 40 of Rulebook under attacks - "+1 Two Weapons: Engaged models with two single-handed weapons (typically a close combat weapon and/or pistol in each hand) have an extra +1 attack for every turn of close combat, including the first." Fourth edition allows the extra attack with any 2 one-handed weapons. Not just ccw/pistol. Probably should double check rules before you blast somebody for not knowing the rules. Thanks for the chuckle though.

RB.84E.01 – Q: May a player choose to hold his
“infantry” units in Reserve when the Escalation
special rule is in effect?
A: No, units without a special rule allowing them to start
in Reserve must be deployed. The only exceptions are
units (and Independent Characters) embarked on a
transport. See RB.84I.05&06 for details [rules change].

This is probably a nitpick Yak, but would this include units embarked on non-dedicated or non-tranport vehicles? A Heavy Support Land Raider or a Falcon is not listed as a tranport vehicle, so could an IC or another unit be held back in reserve in that vehicle? Not sure if I am being clear either

Moz wrote:
-Callidus has the C'tan phase sword, which sounds a lot like a CCW to me. So the question is relevant to the # of attacks.

Again, ignoring the facts I pointed out is quite handy. You cannot gain +1 attack without a CCW/Pistol combo, and the shredder is an assault weapon.

You know, before arguing with me you should know the rules I clearly reference.



Actually, that's 3rd edition. 4th edition merely requires both weapons to be one handed weapons; there is no longer the restriction that one must have the "pistol" designation to grant the extra attack in close combat. This is the prime reason for the question about the Callidus; the RAW change from 3rd to 4th effectively gave the Callidus an extra attack (assuming the shredder is single handed).

Captain K I am wondering why you quoted yourself and had nothing more to add.

Anyways I have to laugh now that people are saying RAW does not always work. I used to knock mauleed for his staunch RAW position with the rules but now looking back I see he was ahead of his time. I think the concept of a metagame is just as much a farce as saying RAW 100%. However I will go with RAW over metagame over 90 percent of the time. This is worse than myceptic spores if you asked me.

- G(reen)

I dunno what you are referring to. I only posted once. Must have been a glitch?

Well if you want to play by RAW, then you won't be shooting your BA pistols on your tactical marines and assaulting me then right?

Capt K

Green Blow Fly wrote:Captain K I am wondering why you quoted yourself and had nothing more to add.

Anyways I have to laugh now that people are saying RAW does not always work. I used to knock mauleed for his staunch RAW position with the rules but now looking back I see he was ahead of his time. I think the concept of a metagame is just as much a farce as saying RAW 100%. However I will go with RAW over metagame over 90 percent of the time. This is worse than myceptic spores if you asked me.

- G(reen)

Well if you want to play by RAW, then you won't be shooting your BA pistols on your tactical marines and assaulting me then right?

Stelek wrote:Ellios, despite being told not to reply to you, I'll give you a fair shot.

I've played at alot of GW events, with alot of GW designers, and I do my fair share of 'stuff' involving GW. Psycannons don't mention cover saves because the guys that wrote the Codex (and the game) hold solid that only flamer templates deny cover saves. It's a basic premise from their viewpoint. Having had that explained to me, I can "understand" what it was they were saying about the psycannon rule being fine as is--why explain what is in the main rules?

Since I've been playing against GK, I've never:

A) Had a GK player tell me I can't take cover saves from a Psycannon.
B) Tried to take cover saves against Incinerator hits.
C) Ever had a problem resolving A or B.

Maybe you run into alot of asshats, or maybe Yakface does, or someone on the 'council' does--but since GK were released I've never had this come up at GT's or FLGS.

Makes me wonder what kind of gaming environment the Indy's have become.

My question is the same as yours--if you're going to add Psycannons to the FAQ and not specify why you made such a clarification, how can you expect someone who is looking at the rule staring up from their codex to NOT feel as though they're being gimped by the Adepticon panel?

I just play the way my opponent/environment dictates. I don't much care. But I expect consistency from something like a FAQ, and rules changes had better be well-founded. Some of these stick out like a sore thumb, and worse yet inflict the local metagame of the creators upon the entire attendance (like the neural shredder thing, which, like your Psycannon experience, I've never had anyone claim that it can cause Instant Death).

And why would someone tell you to ignore me? Do I cut too deep? Oops. Do they want to hear that I give up on the Psycannon thing? I wasn't trying in the first place. I was using it as a vehicle to point out the fact that they changed rules where not needed, and fail to justify themselves when it is.
______________________________

CaptKaruthors wrote:

And, pray tell, how would basing a FAQ off of RAW, create an unworkable FAQ, when you outline GW's RAW policy (codex overrides rulebook, etc) and the "Permissive" nature of the 40k rules as precedents for resolving rule ambiguity (such as tank shock into a combat)...

Are you serious? How many examples of how pure RAW doesn't always work. Do you even read half the crap brought up in YMDC?

Capt K

Yes, I do read quite a bit of it and have been ignoring a majority of it as of late. The one thing that predominates in YMDC is the multitude of people who ask a question after either failing to read the rules or completely comprehend them.

As far as the game being unworkable by RAW, by a large margin it most certainly is not. The issues where RAW is inadequate are few and far between. But then again, I suppose it depends on how absolute your definition of RAW is. Most of the "proofs" that people espouse against RAW are, in my experience, completely ludicrous as to be easily dismissed, or are the result of a complete failure to realize that 40k is based in a permissive and contiguous rule set. Looking at one piece of wargear with its own limited rules defined in the codex, apart from the rest of the main rules (not directly specified by the wargear) and there you have, well, you have every question I've seen in YMDC that supposedly isn't answerable by the rules written.

Since I've been going over this FAQ on the 40kfightclub with Malice and C99 all day, I figured I'd stop over here and see what people have to say about it. I'd like to echo the comments that this FAQ does a good job of showing that FAQs are possible to make, but unlike others I really hope that this FAQ does not become standard. I don't believe that the people who made it were biased but I think they were a little to willing to override the rule book. As C99 pointed out on the fightclub of the 544 questions:
[rules change] was used 305 times.
[RAW] was used 122 times to determine the answer to a question.
[clarification] was used 91 times.
[typo] was used 20 times.
[gw FAQ overrule] was used 6 times.

I undertand the RAW isn't perfect but is it really necessary to change the rules 56% of the time? I don't think so. The Direwolf FAQ for Fantasy have just as bad a ruleset to deal with but manage to create FAQs that are pretty universally excepted by the Fantasy community because they actually clarify things while leaving the rules in place. I wish that the "council" had taken a similar approach to this. I also wish they had left it named the Adepticon FAQ as that way I could easily have ignored it just like I did last year. Instead they are now fracturing the GW tournament scene into Adepticon tournaments and Non-Adepticon tournaments.

steinerp wrote:Since I've been going over this FAQ on the 40kfightclub with Malice and C99 all day, I figured I'd stop over here and see what people have to say about it. I'd like to echo the comments that this FAQ does a good job of showing that FAQs are possible to make, but unlike others I really hope that this FAQ does not become standard. I don't believe that the people who made it were biased but I think they were a little to willing to override the rule book. As C99 pointed out on the fightclub of the 544 questions:
[rules change] was used 305 times.
[RAW] was used 122 times to determine the answer to a question.
[clarification] was used 91 times.
[typo] was used 20 times.
[gw FAQ overrule] was used 6 times.

I undertand the RAW isn't perfect but is it really necessary to change the rules 56% of the time? I don't think so. The Direwolf FAQ for Fantasy have just as bad a ruleset to deal with but manage to create FAQs that are pretty universally excepted by the Fantasy community because they actually clarify things while leaving the rules in place. I wish that the "council" had taken a similar approach to this. I also wish they had left it named the Adepticon FAQ as that way I could easily have ignored it just like I did last year. Instead they are now fracturing the GW tournament scene into Adepticon tournaments and Non-Adepticon tournaments.

I obviously was having trouble expressing myself this eloquently. Props steinerp for perfectly outlining my feelings.

Stelek wrote: I've always refused to play by GW's slowed ruleset and instead played by my own.

Before you go complaining about what is RAW and what isn't and that a FAQ is stupid, it helps to actually know and understand the rules that are in the FAQ.

steinerp wrote:Since I've been going over this FAQ on the 40kfightclub with Malice and C99 all day, I figured I'd stop over here and see what people have to say about it. I'd like to echo the comments that this FAQ does a good job of showing that FAQs are possible to make, but unlike others I really hope that this FAQ does not become standard. I don't believe that the people who made it were biased but I think they were a little to willing to override the rule book. As C99 pointed out on the fightclub of the 544 questions:
[rules change] was used 305 times.
[RAW] was used 122 times to determine the answer to a question.
[clarification] was used 91 times.
[typo] was used 20 times.
[gw FAQ overrule] was used 6 times.

I undertand the RAW isn't perfect but is it really necessary to change the rules 56% of the time? I don't think so. The Direwolf FAQ for Fantasy have just as bad a ruleset to deal with but manage to create FAQs that are pretty universally excepted by the Fantasy community because they actually clarify things while leaving the rules in place. I wish that the "council" had taken a similar approach to this. I also wish they had left it named the Adepticon FAQ as that way I could easily have ignored it just like I did last year. Instead they are now fracturing the GW tournament scene into Adepticon tournaments and Non-Adepticon tournaments.

Paul, don't forget to mention the part about where I also said the following:

Now, while "rules change" was used more than any other, most of those just happen be the way that people actually play, or because it is physically impossible, or blatantly absurd to play by the RAW. For example, by RAW any actions that should occur "at the start of the turn" or "at the start of the movement phase" should, by RAW happen simultaneously. Doing any of those actions first breaks the RAW.

That's the problem with being RAW-fantatics (which most of the people on the FAQ council are) - you get to see when even the RAW is absurd. Take psycannons, for instance. by RAW, it's clear that cover saves aren't allowed. Nobody I know plays that way, or has ever tried to play that way.
But if someone who, with a few friends, picked up the game, read the rules on their own, and then decided to see what this "tournament scene" was all about showed up, they could very easily come assuming that their psycannons don't allow you to take cover saves.
Hence, its technically a "rules change". Because the simple fact is that lots of people play with local conventions that go against the RAW. When you bring together people who have different conventions - you have a recipe for conflict.

Anyone else finding the humor in this?

Usually, when rules questions are answered (especially here at Dakka), people are up in arms because using RAW is a recipe for coming to some silly (psycannons ignoring cover saves), unplayable (all reserves must enter simultaneously), or simply absurd (Can't charge a model from one unit with an IC if there is a model from another unit in BTB) conclusions.

So a committee consisting of the usual proponents of RAW come out with a FAQ that addresses those issues...and people jump all over them for not using RAW enough.

Sorry C99- the reason I referenced you is because I didn't want someone coming after me for counting wrong. Rereading it I should have included more of your disclaimers. I also probably should have clarifed that as I pointed out on the other forum I would argue about the labelling on many of the items as well if I thought how they were labeled was important.

steinerp wrote:Sorry C99- the reason I referenced you is because I didn't want someone coming after me for counting wrong. Rereading it I should have included more of your disclaimers. I also probably should have clarifed that as I pointed out on the other forum I would argue about the labelling on many of the items as well if I thought how they were labeled was important.

No problems.

Hey, I was trying to think...in all the games we've played together, have we actually disagreed on a rules call besides the whole Escalation thing at the Ard Boyz?

Not that I remember (but I don't even remember what we disagreed with regarding Escalation). And that sort of is my point is that while 40k's rules clearly aren't perfect, they don't need an 80 page FAQ. IMO if you had limited to those situations where two rules clearly conflict or a rule is just so poorly worded that no one has any clue what they are supposed to do, then this FAQ would be extremely valuable and should be adopted by everyone.

steinerp wrote:And that sort of is my point is that while 40k's rules clearly aren't perfect, they don't need an 80 page FAQ.

Oh yes they do.

and nevermind, found my answer, but it does bring up the rules changes.

In the FAQ we are now allowed to attach IC's with units that are coming in reserve, and or mark units to come in with a non-dedicated transport. In escalation missions this has a huge effect on the game (mounted Harlequins, mounted Fire Dragons, Terminators in a non dedicated Land Raider) While these make sense, and I know everyone has thought about changing them at one point or another, do they really need changed, or should we change them. Most every tourney I have seen we have not been allowed to do what the above rule change does, and by allowing it, it changes the meta game considerably in any missions with escalation. Oddly, I find it very hard to stomach that rule change after believing it should be changed, but only because it is an unofficial ruling that has a major impact on people using these rules. An impact that as far as I know won't be used in any of the official GW tourneys.

It's an odd feeling.

A comprehensive FAQ like this will have to contradict the RAW or the game would be unplayable and annoying for 99% of the particpants. I won't be able to attend this year but I will likely use this FAQ at the local tournaments I run. I hope others do the same and I'll be lobbying for just that with my local Fight Club members.

The lack of a comprehensive FAQ has been one of the biggest shames of 40k IMHO and I'm glad a commitee such as this put the time and effort to put this together, even if I may disagree with a few of the rulings.

Bravo.

Blackmoor, the problem is--this FAQ doesn't cover most of the cheating. So it's pretty useless to me.

Yep, I got the pistol thing wrong. I have 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 4.5, and 3 playtests of 5th in my noggin. Like I always say, I do make mistakes.

steinerp expressed my feelings very well. You should always err on the side of caution when writing rules supplements, and be as conservative as possible. This FAQ creates a whole new game in so many ways, it's sad to see so much effort put in to the FAQ when the end result is a Adepticon 40k game, not a GW 40k game.

You *can* clarify things for players, and still leave contradictions in the rules. GW's been doing it since the game was created, and I still manage to play games without problems. A quote I'm reminded of is 'good men don't need laws, and bad men aren't improved by them'.
Having asshats at tournaments is nothing new, and there's nothing you can really do about them. If they can't cheat in the rules; they'll cheat in other ways be it dice, measuring, moving, fudging points, or modeling shenanigans.

All I can say is, it really is ok to follow the KISS principle, and when something doesn't make sense instead of bending the tube straight--just say 'yep, that tube is bent'. People WILL fault you for straightening the tube instead of making things fit around it (which most won't fault you for). Can't please everyone, but reinventing the game to your specifications isn't what anyone asked for. Is it?

I find myself falling on the same side as Stelek here.

What I especially don't like is the arbitrary way in which rules changes are handed out. I mean, they're fine changing rules, yet it appears that they've left in the 'Psycannons ignore Turbo-Boost Saves' as RAW.

I mean, everyone agrees that that was an unforseen side-effect of the turbo-boost rules, and that it makes utterly no sense that a Marine's armour stops working just because he's moving faster, yet they don't put a little [rules change] next to that, yet change, as it turns out, more than 300 other times?

No, this isn't 40K. This is Adepticon 40K. It'd be like making everyone play 40KRE at Adepticon. It wouldn't be 40K, it'd be our 40K.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:I find myself falling on the same side as Stelek here.

What I especially don't like is the arbitrary way in which rules changes are handed out. I mean, they're fine changing rules, yet it appears that they've left in the 'Psycannons ignore Turbo-Boost Saves' as RAW.

I mean, everyone agrees that that was an unforseen side-effect of the turbo-boost rules, and that it makes utterly no sense that a Marine's armour stops working just because he's moving faster, yet they don't put a little [rules change] next to that, yet change, as it turns out, more than 300 other times?

No, this isn't 40K. This is Adepticon 40K. It'd be like making everyone play 40KRE at Adepticon. It wouldn't be 40K, it'd be our 40K.

BYE

I hope to get to everyone's feedback at some point, but sadly superbowl festivities plus a (going on with no end in sight) 16 hour very busy workday today has meant that I haven't had time to respond where I'd like to.

I'll take the moment that I do have to respond to HBMC's post just because it happens to be the last one right now. I'll also try to address some general points others have brought up too.


First up is the notion that this is "Adepticon 40K" as opposed to some sort of percieved "real" 40K. Anyone who has attended a national 40K tournament quickly figures out that there is not just one way to play 40K as almost every regional group has interpreted the game in some small way.

Anytime you have a game with the rules as complex as 40K you are going to have different styles of play, each of which feels theirs is entirely correct. In this *very* thread we have people claiming that the rules as they see them written say entirely different things.

Consider that fact for a moment and realize that even if you made a FAQ that you felt was entirely based on the rules as written there would *still* be a large amount of people screaming bloody murder that you were re-shaping the rules. In fact, I will easily say that every single FAQ put out by any event organizer has the majority of its rulings (in reality) be rules changes based on the strictest interpretation of the RAW.

The only difference between any of those other FAQs and ours is that we have actually come out and said where we feel we're changing the rules. Oh, and the fact that this is easily the most comprehensive, well-laid out, cross-referenced and consistent event FAQ ever published. I don't want to forget those parts either. But in many ways we're taking the blows for being a FAQ that is finally honest about its changes.

When you go play in the UKGT with their "house rules" guess what? I guess you aren't playing 40K, you're apparently playing "UKGT 40K" designed by the event organizer who wrote his FAQ.

I suppose that is one way to look at things. But again, I'd point out that people will naturally play the game differently and as I wrote in the FAQ afterword, this a TOURNAMENT FAQ. And a while a tournament may be about crowning winners, is also about giving a pleasurable experience to as many atendees as possible. No one I've ever met enjoys arguments during their games, and I firmly believe that this FAQ will create less in-game arguments than ever before for the reasons that I outline in the document's afterword.


As for the idea that we have so many rules changes as opposed to clarifications or RAW rulings, and for those who don't agree with how particular answers were labeled (looking at you here Stelek ) I want to mention that those labels added to our rulings our simply our opinions on the matter. As I've said several times now in this post, different people have different ideas even of what the RAW mean so it shouldn't be surprising if we think we're changing the RAW with a ruling and you don't.

Also, please be aware that I always tended to take the more conservative route when claiming whether a ruling was changing the RAW or not, with the default being a [rules change] if I was even the slightest bit unsure. So there are *plenty* of people who will look through the document at many of the [rules changes] we made and say: "why is that a rules change?"

Which brings me back to making rulings based on majority-play. It has been said that (I'm paraphrasing): "just because most people play some way doens't make it right".

However, when you're talking about a TOURNAMENT where (again) the GOAL of any good tournament is to make an enjoyable time for as many people as possible, by ruling with the way the majority plays you create an atmosphere with the least possible arguments.

Let's take the case of the Psycannon vs. cover saves. Let's say the numbers in the poll I took in the YMDC forum are even close to the make-up of a tournament body. 80% of the people coming into the tournament play that Psycannons don't ignore cover saves, while 20% do. These are people who play the game and have come to those conclusions (for whatever reason) on their own. I would even say these are the more 'savvy' 40K players in that they surf the web and read online GW FAQs, etc. You would have to imagine that the people who never read FAQs or rarely come online that percentage would be even higher.

So what does it possibly achieve to rule against the 80%? Because it is "right"? But please remember that 80% of the people playing think the "right" way to play (for whatever) reason is that Psycannons do *not* ignore cover saves. The only possible outcome of ruling this way would be to increase the amount of arguments that occur throughout the tournament hall as the 20% have to prove through the FAQ that they are allowed to ignore cover saves. Alternatively, if we rule with the 80%, then the only arguments that occur on the issue are the (very) small percentage of the 20% who did not read the FAQ.

Since I contend that the people who tend to know the RAW are the same people who visit online forums and are 'FAQ savvy', this percentage of people should be very, very small.


Now, obviously we haven't had the time or resources to poll every single question in the FAQ (that may come to Dakka someday), the fact is, we've had to go with our combined tournament experiences for some questions. But nobody's resting on our own laurels. I have been repeatedly saying, if you think there is a subject we have gotten completely wrong we can most certainly run a quick poll and if the results completely destroy our personal tournament experiences then by all means would be strongly consider changing a ruling (almost certainly).

The other area where feedback is really useful is in the matter of consistency across rulings. I've tried my best to catch all the corresponding loopholes that each ruling creates, especially in relation to similar rules (and I know for a fact it is the FAQ that it has been done better than any FAQ before it), but things will always slip through. It is the nature of complexity.

So you don't have to be angry when you find an incosistency, just point it out and why you think it is indeed an inconsistency and if we agree with you we will likely modify the ruling.


Finally, I thought I'd address HBMC's one rule issue he posted:

Why did we rule that Psycannons ignore invulnerable saves for turbo-boosting bikes?

Simple. GW ruled (unofficially) on their forum at one point that way and many people read it and decided to start playing that way. So in our experience, most people believe that is the "right" way to play. Now, we did discuss that ruling multiple times. As always, it is possible we are wrong about how most people play it, but that has been our experience.

However, I wouldn't call the ruling abritrary. We certainly put thought and discussion into making it.


Thanks for all the feedback (the more constructive, the better) and hopefully I'll be able to address some point more directly later.

I really like this FAQ. It hits most issues and gives a ruling. I get tired of going to tournements and going up to the judges to ask how certain things will be ruled before I start. Now, there are a lot more rulings in this FAQ than I nomally ask and other rulings that I disagree with or normally play differently, but I like this much more than going into the tournement, asking the judge, and then finding out the list I brought is not going to work the way I normally play it. Also, I can adapt and do not believe that my version of the rules is the only right version, so the ones we differ on are not a big deal now that I know in advance. And to those that say they put too much into the FAQ... They cannot possible do this in my mind. I have seen too many people believe too many things from what I thought were simple rules. Now I have always worked them out with my opponent, but why have to worry about that? Looking forward to Adepticon.

The Wraith

Got my full support too. I don't care about individual rulings, or the ramifications of RAW vs. how it's played. I just want to be playing the same game that the guy across the table is playing (without having to call an organizer or D6 everything), and this helps that cause tremendously.