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.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Now, about those tournaments you mentioned, I'm interested to know more about those, can you provide me with some details, I'm very keen to know how such a rigid adherence to the written word went down at them and perhaps visit the website or read up on them on someone's blog? See some of the armies that took part?

Have I ever maintained I run my tournaments with no sort of FAQ? No, I haven't. What I do is use the GW FAQ where it does not directly contradict Clear RaW (Deff Dread Attacks for example) along with a Modified INAT FAQ (i.e. Remove the rule changes disguised as "Clarifications").

nosferatu1001 wrote:You only took by force thanks to the French, a fact you seem to have ignored ever since

What does that even mean? Could you work on that and make it a sentence?

Gwar! wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Now, about those tournaments you mentioned, I'm interested to know more about those, can you provide me with some details, I'm very keen to know how such a rigid adherence to the written word went down at them and perhaps visit the website or read up on them on someone's blog? See some of the armies that took part?

Have I ever maintained I run my tournaments with no sort of FAQ? No, I haven't. What I do is use the GW FAQ where it does not directly contradict Clear RaW (Deff Dread Attacks for example) along with a Modified INAT FAQ (i.e. Remove the rule changes disguised as "Clarifications").

So you take the best fit from each, according to your perception of which makes the best sense.

That's all I needed really thanks.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Now, about those tournaments you mentioned, I'm interested to know more about those, can you provide me with some details, I'm very keen to know how such a rigid adherence to the written word went down at them and perhaps visit the website or read up on them on someone's blog? See some of the armies that took part?

Have I ever maintained I run my tournaments with no sort of FAQ? No, I haven't. What I do is use the GW FAQ where it does not directly contradict Clear RaW (Deff Dread Attacks for example) along with a Modified INAT FAQ (i.e. Remove the rule changes disguised as "Clarifications").

So you take the best fit from each, according to your perception of which makes the best sense.

That's all I needed really thanks.

No, I use them when they do not contradict the RaW. I do not "Pick and Choose", I use the bits that do not break the rules.

So then I take it you feel that some parts of the FAQs are up to your snuff and good enough to be considered official.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:So then I take it you feel that some parts of the FAQs are up to your snuff and good enough to be considered official.

G

Only the Parts that actually clarify areas of contention (such as Shadow in the Warp vs Eldar Runes), not parts that totally ignore the RaW, such as Deff Dread Attacks. What GW need to do is stop the BS and just let someone make a comprehensive FAQ/Errata Document.

I suggest Myself. 4 weeks with a Sharpie I could errata fix all the issues brought up in the INAT and Official FAQs.

Gwar! wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:So then I take it you feel that some parts of the FAQs are up to your snuff and good enough to be considered official.

G

Only the Parts that actually clarify areas of contention (such as Shadow in the Warp vs Eldar Runes), not parts that totally ignore the RaW, such as Deff Dread Attacks. What GW need to do is stop the BS and just let someone make a comprehensive FAQ/Erreta Document.

I suggest Myself. 4 weeks with a Sharpie I could errata fix all the issues brought up in the INAT and Official FAQs.

Really? Because you spelt Errata wrongly.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Really? Because you spelt Errata wrongly.

That's because you quoted me before I fixed the typo

Gwar! wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Really? Because you spelt Errata wrongly.

That's because you quoted me before I fixed the typo

So it already went to press before you'd fixed it, make sure that's an Errata fix mind you and not a FAQ...

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Really? Because you spelt Errata wrongly.

That's because you quoted me before I fixed the typo

So it already went to press before you'd fixed it, make sure that's an Errata fix mind you and not a FAQ...

That's why I hire Dakka as proofreaders They fixed multiple problems on my 2nd article in about 5 minutes

I think we should just change the name of this thread.

This thread has gone off the deep end and is now closed.

I think we've all learned a valuable lesson here, as detailed in this graph: