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.

temprus wrote:

Timmah wrote:GW officially supports it.
A larger amount of the community has a say in it. (more than just dakka dakka)

You may have failed to notice that some of the current GW FAQs are based upon the Adepticon FAQ and even mention thanks to Yakface and crew directly.

I agree, GW SHOULD be doing their own FAQs, but GW has decided FAQs are not important to their business model. I would like to thank Yakface and the others for providing a reasonable replacement until such time as GW finally does.

I'm not so sure he failed to notice. I didn't fail to notice. However what I did notice is GW jerking people around again by changing up the rules of a tournament mid run. This is the main issue as far as I see it. For the up coming fantasy 'ard boyz this month I hope they decide what rules they want to use BEFORE the tournament starts. Otherwise using your prize money on models you want to use in the next round is pointless yet again and people will be getting f'ed over yet again by their inability to resolve major issue with their buisness model (i.e. the rules).

Oh and a note to who ever posted that GW ships out the scenario and rules packages to tournament holders, they don't. Both locations I played at had to print it all themselves and inconsistantly rule on issues themselves. It would be nice if the organizers of the 'Ard Boyz did do such a package. No more rules inconsistancy between judges and places. It would have earned me 1st place in the semi's instead of 5th. I got screwed over by a necron player who purposely phased himself out a turn earlier than I wanted, stopping me from getting a few extra bonus points (they really need to remove phase out it wrecks tournament point systems). Would also have helped to have a consistant ruling on Gate, one judge said use it as RAW (you can use it no matter what in your movement phase if you can pass the leadership test) and the other said no in the next game of that round stating you can't use it if in combat because it didn't specifically say that combat doesn't stop the psyker from using this specific power during the movement phase(yet its ok to use any other psychic power that i allowed during the movement phase, you just might not be able to take advantage of the effect). That was the worest rules justification I had ever heard.

They changed 'ard Boys last year too.

SM used the new codex in the last round.

This is not new.

dietrich wrote:If GW was a gaming company, and not a miniatures company that made some rules, this wouldn't be an issue. Privateer Press, while having a massive FAQ/Errata, has figured out that to have a good game, you need to provide a good framework of rules.

Oddly enough, I have plenty of good games that don't require any FAQ or Errata from GW or INAT or anywhere else. Of course, I'm not spending my time playing zero-sum games against strangers to try and win prizes with actual monetary value above and beyond mere bragging rights... Thus, I would say that, to have a good game, you need to provide a reasonable framework of rules for a good group of players.
____

Strimen wrote: Basically my issue isn't with the FAQ its with GW for not play testing and doing this work themselves and releaseing a sound product.

I find it slowed when GW uses a user made FAQ in the third round of an offical tourny and then doesn't at the very least make that FAQ the now offical GW standard and just end the whole issue of their incompetence.

Our group finds that GW does more than adequate playtesting for our purposes, and that their products are generally sound.

I find it slowed that GW hosts tournaments with prize support at all, and wouldn't expect their suits to ever enshrine some fan product as official. When you get down to it, the FAQ is akin to a RTS "mod" - it supports a small percentage of the playerbase, who desperately need it for their own purposes.
____

dietrich wrote:GW shouldn't support a third-party FAQ. They should be producing their own.

My experience is that most RTTs are willing to either accept the Adepticon FAQ wholesale, or with a handful of additional rulings and/or changes.

Why? GW has repeatedly said they're moving away from FAQs and errata, and that a player should only need the Rulebook & Codex (or Army Book). A FAQ completely undermines that.

Most RTTs simply don't have the resources to compete with the INAT FAQ.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:There seems to be this notion that GW's officially unofficial FAQs, and even the rules themselves, are extensively though out, playtested, discussed and debated by developers who have a greater understanding of 40k than mere mortals can ever hope to achieve. GW's FAQs are mostly the result of coin flips, even before they just started accepting the INAT faqs. I'm not going to say that GW faqs wouldn't be "more correct," but they're not going to be that much more correct.

That is utterly, laughably *false*.

To be correct, you should have written:

"GW's FAQs are mostly the result of rolling a d6"

The INAT FAQ is well written and extensive but this could devolve into the wolf guarding the proverbial hen house.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:The INAT FAQ is well written and extensive but this could devolve into the wolf guarding the proverbial hen house.

G

Only in the minds of those that think that the wolf gives two shakes about any given hen in any given house. If someone on your "list" wins, then it is a big conspiracy. If someone on your list doesn't "win" but it was the exact same FAQ, it isn't a conspiracy. It's just a potential conspiracy until someone on the "list" wins again.

In my experience, people only point to wolves and hen houses if they would be a wolf in the same situation.

Sorry I think the message of my original argument was lost. (not to mention incorrectly labeled as ad hominem, suprise suprise.)


Anyways, the entire argument for this FAQ is that it was made by 7 very smart individuals who know the rules inside and out and came to a conclusion.
This is a logical fallacy. (different from ad hominem, yes there are other ones despite what the internets tell you)

This is an argument from authority fallacy. You are saying this FAQ is/should be legal rulings because it comes from a source that dakka believes is an authority.

I pointed out that the writers are not really an authority on the issue more than anyone else. But you may say, "oh they have judged multiple tournaments" Ok, do they have any formal judging training from GW? Nope, their rules knowledge comes from the exact same place everyone elses does. Reading the GW official FAQ's, the BRB and the codeci. No where else. GW does not have a formal training program for their judges or anything like that.

So as stated before the reason people are accepting this FAQ is in fact a fallacy and is incorrect reasoning.

Timmah wrote:This is an argument from authority fallacy. You are saying this FAQ is/should be legal rulings because it comes from a source that dakka believes is an authority.

I pointed out that the writers are not really an authority on the issue more than anyone else. But you may say, "oh they have judged multiple tournaments" Ok, do they have any formal judging training from GW? Nope, their rules knowledge comes from the exact same place everyone elses does. Reading the GW official FAQ's, the BRB and the codeci. No where else. GW does not have a formal training program for their judges or anything like that.

So as stated before the reason people are accepting this FAQ is in fact a fallacy and is incorrect reasoning.

Ok, as long as we're on the logical fallacies bandwagon, the above is called a straw man -- you're creating an argument ("Accept the FAQ because of the authority of the people who wrote it!") that no one is making, and attacking that.

Certainly, the argument you state is fallacious, but I'm not really reading that argument. Most of the pro-FAQ people seem to have the central point of "it's better than no FAQ, and the FAQ itself, while imperfect, is pretty good". You've consistently failed to address that argument.

It will not be accept by the masses until either one of two things happen.

Not to burst your bubble, but from the looks of it, a vast majority of 'the masses' that you speak for do indeed accept it.

Also: You can't assume that everyone is blithely accepting the FAQ as sheep without thinking for themselves. You seem to be implying that people simply accept the whole FAW, and this is a bad thing.

However, I'm confident that the majority of people are intelligent enough to decide for themselves whether something is good. I know that I, for one, would not use the FAQ in my games if I didn't think that it was well written, and that the rulings make sense in one form or another. You might not like that it was written by a small group of people, but that doesn't make the FAQ valid. The fact remains that they did it, great for them, and it's up to us to judge it ourselves.

Give us some credit for independence, please.

Lowinor wrote:Ok, as long as we're on the logical fallacies bandwagon, the above is called a straw man -- you're creating an argument ("Accept the FAQ because of the authority of the people who wrote it!") that no one is making, and attacking that.

Why doesn't everyone just agree to disagree. In 4 pages the argument is nowhere near being decided. Just let it go.

Sorry, my bad, I didn't know the masses = dakka dakka.

Pretty sure there are more people than the few that reply to threads like these on 1 forum.

As to your: "Most of the pro-FAQ people seem to have the central point of "it's better than no FAQ, and the FAQ itself, while imperfect, is pretty good"

You will notice most of my arguments showed how to make it better and were not really attacks on the people who wrote it.

Telling someone they have a bias is not an attack, its a simple fact. I can always interchange it with point of view.

Timmah wrote:You will notice most of my arguments showed how to make it better and were not really attacks on the people who wrote it.

When you need to add the Qualifier "Most", you are doing it wrong.

Gwar! wrote:

Timmah wrote:You will notice most of my arguments showed how to make it better and were not really attacks on the people who wrote it.

When you need to add the Qualifier "Most", you are doing it wrong.

As in most of the time when I made an argument against it, I showed how I believed it could be done better.

I can make a valid argument without that also.

So using the qualifier most is not really a detriment...

I am pretty sure you are the only one who keeps attacking people in this thread Gwar.

I dont' know man, I've read your posts, and most were pretty much just pointing out the small size of the council and it's non-democratically appointed composition. As far as I could tell your suggestions were "Involve more people."

In case anybody is curious, I quoted every one of Timmah's posts in this thread. Insinuations that the Adepticon council is biased, or other vague complaints about the character, are red. Suggestions are in blue.

Timmah wrote:So everyone attending ard boyz must memorize another 100 pages that essentially change a lot of the rules from the BRB?

Woow, nothing I love more than memorizing a huge set of rules across multiple books and now having to memorize another 100+ pages that contradict and change a lot of the rules in the current books I have memorized.

Awesome...

Timmah wrote:No, the problem I have with the INAT FAQ is that it changes a lot of the ruels, even clear rules.

This should not be in a group of players hands unless they are completely impartial.

Do I really need to explain the problems having an official document made by players who have a stock in different rulings?

Timmah wrote:
I believe some of the rulings do hurt certain armies and help others.

I ask this question to you though, how does one get on this council? Do they take anyone that wants to be on? Are only those with connections to current members able to get on? ect ect?

Depending on how you pick members, it could very well be that the majority of them share common ideas. They aren't going to invite someone who opposes their ideas, more than likely.

Timmah wrote:Any player is obviously bias. Pretending they aren't is rediculous.

Now depending on how they invite people the work could be very bias or very unbias.

However, considering that most people don't even know how the council is picked, that seems strange and suspicious.


Some/many of their rulings are fine imo, and probably in the opinion of a lot of players.

However some are just ludicrous. Go read the one on chaos dreadnoughts. Its just rediculous that they break rules for their opinion of how it works and then call it a clarification.

Timmah wrote:There are multiple items where they break rules and such in the FAQ. I labeled one, not everyone I could find.

So 7 people, chosen by adepticon, get to make the rulings for everything ambigous in all of the rules?

This sounds like a majorities opinion in most matters win. Obviously they are going to pick 7 people who they know will cooperate.

Pretending that all biases will be cleared up because they have a whole 7 people is a joke.

7 people is a complete joke as far as getting rid of biases. Heck the supreme court even needs 9 and those people are all suppose to be complete unbias and are scrutinized by many before hand.

So if one system needs 9 completely unbias people to get rid of any biases, how does a group of individuals based on who an organization knows, only need 7?

Timmah wrote:
Hello, this is a forum, where we discuss stuff. Personal attacks are not going to make your opinion right.
You of all people should know this Gwar.


All I am saying is that it should be obvious to most people that 7 people are going to be bias towards unclear rules and how they rule them. I think anyone that has taken a business or any type of ethics course would understand how biases work. Oh hey, look what armies you play and regularly play against. Of course you are going to have biases about them.

I am saying that 7 people chosen by a company, with no community input, is not a good basis for rules that determine a ton of grey areas. If you think it is, thats fine, but I for one, don't.


Also this. Some of the rules in there are changes to the actual RAW and they do feel like house rules.

Timmah wrote:I love how all the mods come out of the woodwork to defend this FAQ.

Couple of things.

1. I'm confused, why am I making an Ad hominem attack/argument when all I did was point out that you were making a personal attack towards me?

2. Yes, I would like more than 7 people, and I would like to know the selection process ect. If I am going to follow your rules, I want to know how you have come to them.

3. If GW is going to use this FAQ, I want it official and a link to it on their site. What about the people who don't come onto dakka to find out the rules? I see nothing on GW's site that says, "we are using the adepticon FAQ"


If GW wants to adopt it as their official FAQ, that is fine, I would love a concise set of rules like this. But I see nothing that says they have done this. They still have all of their FAQs/errata on their site and that is it.


I don't think a private set of rulings should be used unless the GW is going to take responsibility for them being correct. Meaning that they officially support and maintain them and replace/compliment the FAQ's on their site with it.

Timmah wrote:


No, I do not expect them to be consistant. Thats why the community needs to let them know that we want them to be consistant.
I personally am not going to lie down and just take whatever crap they send my way.

Its not that I don't like the rulings in the FAQ.

Its 2 things.

The way they are determined
The fact that GW is just adopting them for 1 event.


@RantheCid

Unfortunately I can not volunteer to staff an event because I do not live in the area. Since you are picking people solely from this list, would you not agree that some of these rules are almost house rules for the area?

Basically the people with massive amounts of time and are in your area are the only ones allowed to make the rules? Seems like only a certain demographic of people are going to be in this group doesn't it? Meaning bias in the FAQ.


@Frazzled
Workable alternative?
I am just one person, but I am sure there are many many reasonable alternatives.
Like a better diversity of people on the council that decides on the rulings. However all are pretty moot until GW decides to take some responsibility.

Either way, 7 people is not enough to make decisions for such a huge community over such controversial rules issues.

I would say you would want a mix of community leaders and well know members from both the Americas (USA, canada ect) and Europe. As this big diversity is going to have different opinions on how things work.

Timmah wrote:GW is the official source, they don't need to tell us why they chose to make certain rules.

I don't see why I owe someone money so they can make their UNOFFICIAL FAQ less bias.

I would happily volunteer my time to help write a more impartial FAQ, as I am sure many other 40k players would. Especially if it was going to be used by every/most RTT's.

The thing is, if you have people from all over the US help with this, then they all adopt it as the official FAQ and it becomes a better document.

As is, it feels like a couple gamers from the chicago area are telling us how they think we should play our game.


Letting more people in on the decision making, makes it more accepted by the masses.


Heres an idea.

Ask for volunteers and invite a number of community managers from different websites. Librarium online, tau online, dakka dakka, YTTH, warseer ect ect.
Then take accept a number of volunteers from around the US and collaberate together on a single set of rules. Votes can be taken after discussion on each item.

Now you have a FAQ that can be posted on all the major websites and that a lot of the community can feel they helped create. Most people are more likely to accept a new rule if they have a say in it or at least were allowed to let their opinions known.

Timmah wrote:

Oh look, more conjecture and personal attacks. "Someone does not feel our FAQ is amazing, get him!"




So how exactly do 7 people represent people all across the US? 7 Tournament venues? Sure, but it is still one type of individual. The outspoken community manager type. This makes it not a good demographic of people.

Would you make a survey that was only sent to the 7 richest people in america and assume its results to be true for everyone?

Timmah wrote:I do not have a chip on my shoulder.

If you read my earlier posts, I said I would be happy if GW chose to officially support this FAQ. (using it for one tournament is not that) However until they do that it is just a bunch of house rulings. It will not be accept by the masses until either one of two things happen.

GW officially supports it.
A larger amount of the community has a say in it. (more than just dakka dakka)

If GW supported it for every one of their tournaments then it would be recognized as the official FAQ.

If a huge amount of the community had some (any) involvement in it, then they would accept it more readily for RTT events and such and it would become official.


As is, it is just a FAQ written by 7 people and used for 1 (now 2) tournaments. And is not used by the masses and is therefore not all that useful.


On the concept of bias, everyone has them. Me claiming that 7 individuals who wrote something have a bias based on who they are, is like me claiming their is water in the ocean.

I can't physically prove it, but everyone knows its true.
Now 7 people together might help to remove some of that, but it won't completely. Especially when all 7 people are basically the same demographic.

Timmah wrote:Sorry I think the message of my original argument was lost. (not to mention incorrectly labeled as ad hominem, suprise suprise.)


Anyways, the entire argument for this FAQ is that it was made by 7 very smart individuals who know the rules inside and out and came to a conclusion.
This is a logical fallacy. (different from ad hominem, yes there are other ones despite what the internets tell you)

This is an argument from authority fallacy. You are saying this FAQ is/should be legal rulings because it comes from a source that dakka believes is an authority.

I pointed out that the writers are not really an authority on the issue more than anyone else. But you may say, "oh they have judged multiple tournaments" Ok, do they have any formal judging training from GW? Nope, their rules knowledge comes from the exact same place everyone elses does. Reading the GW official FAQ's, the BRB and the codeci. No where else. GW does not have a formal training program for their judges or anything like that.

So as stated before the reason people are accepting this FAQ is in fact a fallacy and is incorrect reasoning.

I should have said that people could make a claim that it's the fox guarding the hen house. I think most of us would agree that there would be some controversy if a council member won this year. If none of the council members are playing then it's strictly a non issue.

I reread the INAT FAQ last night and I think it's a well written document. I am going to run a GT this fall and I am planning to use the INAT FAQ as a reference but not as an official document. It doesn't really take very long to read the sections that cover the rulebook and then you really only need to read the rules for the armies you feel that will be present and have the best chances of winning.

G

Nice job Polonius. I like it.

DarthDiggler wrote:Nice job Polonius. I like it.

I have many negative qualities. One of them is that it annoys the hell out of me when people try to change gears half way through an argument.

Orkestra wrote:
There's no difference. Honestly. How do you think they pick Tourney Judges? I assure you, it's not a gruelling 3-month program designed to expunge all traces of bias and humanity. It's reasonable people who the TO's know.

For transparency purposes: There are nine of us on the INAT team - Yakface - the main AdeptiCon rules judge and INAT coordinator, the (3) AdeptiCon executive council members, the (4) 40K tournament organizers for AdeptiCon and (2) of the main 40K rules judges. Centurian99 and I are a split team co-organizing the Gladiator.

Better to have a ruling tell me months in advance than to have that ruling during a game and quite possibly leaving a sour taste in one of the player's mouths.


Say what you want about Gwar, but atleast he looks at the rules with a bias towards RAW 100% of the time. I vote for Gwar to be in the next INAT FAQ council.


(yes you can sig that Gwar, its meant as a compliment.)

Inquisitor_Malice wrote:

Orkestra wrote:
There's no difference. Honestly. How do you think they pick Tourney Judges? I assure you, it's not a gruelling 3-month program designed to expunge all traces of bias and humanity. It's reasonable people who the TO's know.

For transparency purposes: There are nine of us on the INAT team - Yakface - the main AdeptiCon rules judge and INAT coordinator, the (3) AdeptiCon executive council members, the (4) 40K tournament organizers for AdeptiCon and (2) of the main 40K rules judges. Centurian99 and I are a split team co-organizing the Gladiator.

And yet you don't answer the concern. What gives your opinions on rules more authority than our opinions? Do you have extra training from GW? Its "reasonable" people that the TO knows. So most likely friends/volunteers ect. Again there are 7 (9 now?) who I would guess are all from basically the same demographic of people.

@Polonius
Pretty much the entire red part is me explaining how people have biases. Please go take a ethics course of any type and you will realize that everyone has biases when they have a stake (no matter how small) in something. Heck in business ethics if I even have a friend at a company I am auditing I will be moved to a different case. Pretending that someone who owns an entire army which they have spent hundreds of dollars/hours won't have any biases towards said army rules or rules that effect said army, is a complete joke.

@thehod

The problem I have with GW using this for 1 event is it will lead to situations like this:

Raw says this
INAT FAQ says this
INAT FAQ isn't official
INAT FAQ was used at 'ard boyz


Now how do you settle that? Both people have valid points and expectations.
Again, if GW makes it an official FAQ by adding it to their website as an official FAQ, that would be great. We would have a ton of rules questions easily answered. However they won't/haven't done this yet. So we will get situations like the one above.

Well, some of the read was admittedly running up the score, but the point was that you were full of it when you claim most of your posts were about improvement. most of the posts were you going on about bias.

And I don't plan on taking any classes of any sort for quite a while, thanks. There's a huge diffence between conflict of interest in the legal or business world and in a world of purely volunteer effort. The idea is that you can always find another person to take the job for money, but for volunteer work you should take the best people willing to do the job for free.

I also think you dramatically overstate the payoff. Let's say a council member has an eldar army, and pushes all intepretations in favor of eldar. That might help him (if he plays in a tournament that uses that FAQ), but also every other Eldar player. What's the payoff?

On the other hand, what's the harm?

Timmah wrote:
And yet you don't answer the concern. What gives your opinions on rules more authority than our opinions? Do you have extra training from GW? Its "reasonable" people that the TO knows. So most likely friends/volunteers ect. Again there are 7 (9 now?) who I would guess are all from basically the same demographic of people.

Timmah - The contributing parties to the INAT in no way have indicated that we have a more valid opinion than others including yourself. A method for creating the INAT team was developed, which was alluded to in my previous post (AdeptiCon executive council, Yakface-main INAT coordinator, AdeptiCon 40K TOs and some of the 40K rules judges). This process has been followed consistently over the years and it is just our method for team selection.

As far as demographics - the thing that binds us is we are volunteers with AdeptiCon, involved in the 40K community/gaming environment, and working professionals. Otherwise, we are a fairly diverse group including professional, geographical, political, personal interests and more.

What I recommend is to read the introduction in the INAT and it's final page. In summary, it is a document that can be used as a reference by any person, entity or event. If you wish to use it for yourself, great. If not - then so be it. The same goes for entities or events such as the ard Boyz team, store owners, gaming groups or independent events.

As a non tournament gamer, I see the INATFAQ as a great thing.

I do not have the dedication to 40k to do this
I do not have the rules knowledge of the basic rules to do this
I do not have the rules knowledge of the army books to do this
I do not have the tourney experience to know regional interpretations
Most of all, I do not have the time to devote to compiling a 100pg document

The INAT council have these things. Also they have YMDC as a resource of subjects that come up regularly.

I have been a member of Dakka in one form or another since it started, so I realize that Yakface knows his stuff when it comes to rules.

Widening the pool of the INAT would only dilute the decision making process. It is probably difficult enough getting 9 to agree on something.

As for there being bias, I do not know how that bias would affect any army without it being screamingly obvious to any one who read it.
A majority of the decisions made seem to follow the conventions most agree to in the rules forum here.

Timmah wrote:Again there are 7 (9 now?) who I would guess are all from basically the same demographic of people.

If you looked at the second page of the INAT where it says who the ruling council is, you would count 9 names. So I don't know where you got 7 from in the first place.

I can assure you, personally, that every member of the INAT Council knows that what is being worked on is bigger then themselves. The INAT is made with the only intent being to benefit the community as a whole.

As for GW adopting the INAT for the finial round and not before.. what rules did you go by before that? What did you do round 1 and 2 if you had a dispute that wasn't covered in the GW FAQ? Did you ask the individual(s) putting it on at that location for a ruling? If you did then you got a house ruling. At that, a ruling that is probably not at all consistent across all of the locations hosting rounds 1 and 2. And you got it without knowing before hand how said rule was going to be made. With GW taking on the INAT, they are giving you the opportunity to know ahead of time how certain issues are going to be ruled. Not to minimalize rounds 1 and 2, but for the 3rd an finial round im sure those going surely appreciate knowing ahead of time they will be getting as few surprises as possible if something comes up.

It takes 9 people hours upon hours to go over rules contentions. Adding more people to the mix makes the process take even longer. There comes a point when you have to say you are comfortable with the number of people and their mindset in regards to making something beneficial to the community over personal interest.

As for saying some things go clearly against the RAW of a rule, I say it depends on your interpretation. Using the Bible as an example, how many different groups of people read the exact same words but come away with totally different ideas of what exactly is being said? Its no different then with the rules of this game. If RAW was ever so clear, no one would be making a INAT, a GW FAQ or a YMDC on Dakka over issues. But interpretations differ, wording isn't precise and so a group of people stepped up to the plate and put something out there for people to use. For their own reasons, GW decided that something is pretty darn good overall, and they want to use for their event.

You do know that GW when they wrote their FAQs actually overruled some of the rules made up by the adepticon organisers? And still thanked Yak etc.

GW UK/Europe doesnt use it, so it cant be that official.

However it is organised it should be the same rules over the full event, not houserules round #1 in someplaces and all of the sudden a full FAQ.

Inquisitor_Malice wrote:

Timmah wrote:
And yet you don't answer the concern. What gives your opinions on rules more authority than our opinions? Do you have extra training from GW? Its "reasonable" people that the TO knows. So most likely friends/volunteers ect. Again there are 7 (9 now?) who I would guess are all from basically the same demographic of people.

Timmah - The contributing parties to the INAT in no way have indicated that we have a more valid opinion than others including yourself. A method for creating the INAT team was developed, which was alluded to in my previous post (AdeptiCon executive council, Yakface-main INAT coordinator, AdeptiCon 40K TOs and some of the 40K rules judges). This process has been followed consistently over the years and it is just our method for team selection.

As far as demographics - the thing that binds us is we are volunteers with AdeptiCon, involved in the 40K community/gaming environment, and working professionals. Otherwise, we are a fairly diverse group including professional, geographical, political, personal interests and more.

What I recommend is to read the introduction in the INAT and it's final page. In summary, it is a document that can be used as a reference by any person, entity or event. If you wish to use it for yourself, great. If not - then so be it. The same goes for entities or events such as the ard Boyz team, store owners, gaming groups or independent events.

And here is the problem. By being used at 'ard boyz it is being forced upon us.

By your own admission it is no more valid than any of our opinions of certain rules. Yet by GW using it for 1 event they are going to bring up huge amounts of debates over whether it is considered official for other tournaments or not.

Hence my belief that they need to use it for everything or nothing.


@marius xerxes
I was told 7 by one of the people in this thread.

Also there are things in it that very clearly go against RAW. Check out kallbrand's response, notice some of the GW official FAQ's went against what adepticon had to say.

Timmah wrote:And here is the problem. By being used at 'ard boyz it is being forced upon us.

No, it isn't. No-one is foricing you to play in the 'Ard Boyz. If you hate the FAQ so much, don't play.

It is a good FAQ..much more concise than GWs...I live on the other side of the world and we here use the adepticon FAQ as it clarifies things a LOT....

Gwar! wrote:

Timmah wrote:And here is the problem. By being used at 'ard boyz it is being forced upon us.

No, it isn't. No-one is foricing you to play in the 'Ard Boyz. If you hate the FAQ so much, don't play.

Oh sorry, that tournament that I prepared for by winning 2 others... I just won't go.

Gwar! have you read the adepticon FAQ? Would you agree that there are some pretty sketchy interpretations of RAW and even some times its just ignored?