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.

I'm trying to log in to register, but it keeps saying "invalid token" when I click to submit... any thoughts?

Never mind! See you all there!

Yeah, Starcraft has eaten my life. I have been playing it non stop, i need to go to a 12 step program or something. Damn video games! I barely ever play them and now I am on a bender.

Same here. Haven't played a video game other than WoW in over 3 years and even WoW I've only played a couple times in the last 6 months. Damn Starcraft 2 sucked me in hardcore....

I regret to say that I am unable to attend.

Instead I'll be going to my bachelor party.

Hopefully I can make it to the next SoCal Slaughter.

Best luck to all the players.

An excellent reason to duck it Didn't know you were getting married Dave, congrats.

Out of curiosity, Do they use the INAT FAQ at this venue?

Nope

No? How odd.

Hulksmash wrote:Nope

Very well then! Phazael's word is law!

Hulksmash wrote:Nope

I will never, ever, ever push anyone/event to use the INATFAQ, but I really think they should put something out instead if they're not going to use it. In the last tournament I attended I played against the ringer Grey Knight army. Now, the army was pretty darn tame and I got a solid win out of it, but the fact is (at least in that game, but I assume that's how they run it all the time) they were playing with *some* bonuses of a legacy codex and not others.

The smoke launchers were played as written in the codex (penetrating=glancing) but Storm Shields were played as a straight up 3+ invulnerable (not as written) and the Assault Cannon was played as Heavy 4, rending (not as written).

I'm a very, very easy-going person when it comes to playing how other people want to play (Brad, our little 'tiff' over whether you were within range to charge me or not in the last turn of that game we played has been making me feel like a douche since then...so sorry, I should have given you the charge without all the hassle once you made your measurement), but not everyone I would imagine would be so happy to see things played this way, and rightly so.

Without *some* printed FAQ players have absolutely no idea how judges are going to rule if they do bring things up and personally I don't think that is ever a good thing.

I respect what Yak (and pals) have tried to do with the INAT faq, but I am fundementally against running third party rules at an event. Whatever your opinion on the INAT faq, it is not an official source and largely reflective of the opinions of the group that creates it. I am not going to launch into a Sutton style nerd rage orgy over it, but I do prefer to make only official GW sources the deffinative ones (even assinine ones like the rescent Nid Faq) because it gives everyone the same framework to operate in.

Sufficive to say, if you have a specific rules question about something that is not covered in a GW faq and that the community at large has differing opinions on, please shoot me a PM or email and I will tell you how something will be ruled day of. Please bear in mind that my philosophy is RAW first, but spirit of the game when RAW is unclear.

Phazael wrote:I respect what Yak (and pals) have tried to do with the INAT faq, but I am fundementally against running third party rules at an event. Whatever your opinion on the INAT faq, it is not an official source and largely reflective of the opinions of the group that creates it. I am not going to launch into a Sutton style nerd rage orgy over it, but I do prefer to make only official GW sources the deffinative ones (even assinine ones like the rescent Nid Faq) because it gives everyone the same framework to operate in.

Sufficive to say, if you have a specific rules question about something that is not covered in a GW faq and that the community at large has differing opinions on, please shoot me a PM or email and I will tell you how something will be ruled day of. Please bear in mind that my philosophy is RAW first, but spirit of the game when RAW is unclear.

I can't just leave this post alone ...but I'll try to make this the last one on the point and be done with it.

As I said above, I'm not advocating that you should use the INAT. Obviously the rulings in it are based on the opinions of the players involved in ruling on it (how else could it be?), but the idea that the FAQ is somehow '3rd party rules' and by you not using a FAQ you're avoiding this and giving everyone the same 'framework to operate in' is frankly a bit ludicrous.

ALL tournaments operate with '3rd party rules' in the form of a tournament organizer or judge making rulings in certain situations. You can either make these house rules (rulings) public ahead of time in the form of a FAQ or you can keep players guessing by making them wait to see which way a judge will rule when they're called over.

PMing or emailing specific people rulings ahead of time is a highly flawed system because it forces players to have to think of every possible question and then contact you ahead of time to have that answer known. For example, I may have some questions about the army I'm playing that I'll think of and email you ahead of time, but I'm certainly not going to email you questions about other armies. So when the tournament rolls around and I'm playing against enemy army X, and a strange situation comes up and a judge has to be called over, I have no idea about what the ruling is going to be and may end up costing me the game (in a worst-case scenario, of course).

IMHO, the only framework this gives your players is one of uncertainty. Those who have emailed you about specific questions know the answers to those questions, but everyone else has absolutely no idea how situations regarding other armies are going to be handled.

Since you guys are putting on quite a few tournaments now, why not take the INAT FAQ as a basis to look through, find the questions you think really need to be covered and then make your own FAQ to publish these rulings ahead of time?

Phazael wrote:I respect what Yak (and pals) have tried to do with the INAT faq, but I am fundementally against running third party rules at an event. Whatever your opinion on the INAT faq, it is not an official source and largely reflective of the opinions of the group that creates it. I am not going to launch into a Sutton style nerd rage orgy over it, but I do prefer to make only official GW sources the deffinative ones (even assinine ones like the rescent Nid Faq) because it gives everyone the same framework to operate in.

Sufficive to say, if you have a specific rules question about something that is not covered in a GW faq and that the community at large has differing opinions on, please shoot me a PM or email and I will tell you how something will be ruled day of. Please bear in mind that my philosophy is RAW first, but spirit of the game when RAW is unclear.

As Yakface said, not using INAT FAQ does not mean non-GW personnel are absolved of making certain rulings. Ruling may indeed come up that are not covered by GW FAQ's. When this occurs it simply becomes the whimsy of the judge. Therefore you have a choice. 1) Make everything transparent in a FAQ about how judges are going to rule or 2) Make all rulings ultimately "judge's call" at the time of the ruling.

Without a FAQ you are advocating judge's call. This is fine but it's not as transparent as a FAQ and it also might not be consistent if two judges rule in different ways in similar situations. Q&A sessions don't reach all of the intended audience. A private answer to one person might not reach his opponent after list selection or he pays his entry fee.

I think transparency and consistency is more fair to the people who play in my tournaments. That is why I use a comprehensive FAQ. I use INAT because I'm too lazy to create one myself and I'm not interested in re-inventing the wheel. INAT FAQ is widely known and easily available. I don't even have to host the download server.

If you don't like INAT then make your own FAQ. But don't just not use one. That's sticking your head in the sand.

I don't like using non-official sources, its really as simple as that. Anyhow, I don't want to turn this thread into another discussion on the merrits and flaws of the INAT.

Phazael wrote:I don't like using non-official sources, its really as simple as that. Anyhow, I don't want to turn this thread into another discussion on the merrits and flaws of the INAT.

This isn't really about the INAT. It's about the concept of TO's issuing FAQ's ahead of tournaments. Your desire to not use non-official sources is not feasible unless you plan on having the 40k design team judging your tournament. If you are a judge at a tournament and you are not an employee of GW then you yourself are a non-official source.

Not looking to flick matches onto a pile of dead puppies soaked in kerosene here, BUT...!

I run tournaments every month and I've run the 'Ard Boyz both at the preliminary and semi-final rounds, and GW's position about rulings whenever I've asked has always been "We will back you up on whatever ruling you make within reason" and the understanding was always, even at the more important events like 'Ard Boyz semi-finals, that as long as I'm not telling people that their bolters are AP1 or that Orks get +7A on the charge, that is, if I'm making a legitimate ruling based on the RAW and availalble GW FAQs, I'm acting as a proxy for GW with its full support. I'm sure Phazael would have a similar conversation if he asked Spettigue (or whomever is handling the GT-qualifier events these days) about it.

Burn, puppies, burn!

...Back on topic, I'm really looking forward to going, with fingers crossed that I can get my plague-ridden, Nurgle-worshipping traitor Guardsmen fully painted in time!

Finally, any word on available spaces? There's a handful of Fantasy players I've talked to about going, but they'll probably only go en masse...
-Dis.

Total space is capped at 60 players for both systems. I seriously doubt we will have a large fantasy turnout (our main Fantasy GT is two weeks before this), so realistically the 40k cap should be higher than 30. I am due to talk to the Smackdown folks about signups, so once I do I will update the thread here.

Ok for those interested in Fantasy (and its looking thin now, for an easy golden ticket) the packet is now up for that, as well:

www.scgwl.com\downloads\GT\SSDFant.pdf

Do you have a head count for 40K?

Phazael wrote:I don't like using non-official sources, its really as simple as that. Anyhow, I don't want to turn this thread into another discussion on the merrits and flaws of the INAT.

Stick to your guns, I prefer this

Phazael wrote:I don't like using non-official sources, its really as simple as that. Anyhow, I don't want to turn this thread into another discussion on the merrits and flaws of the INAT.

It's not about the INIAT. Are you reading their replies?

It's about publishing rulings ahead of time so people know what to expect. That's more helpful to everyone (for preplanning) than just making rulings on the fly, and will cause less arguments and misunderstandings on the day of the event.

He already indicated that he's going with RAW and common sense.

I kind of feel like I know what to expect.

Since it's a matter of preference I guess it is unreasonable to expect everyone to agree. C'est la vie. I'm not sure why I cared so much anyway considering I can't afford to go

Monster Rain wrote:He already indicated that he's going with RAW and common sense.

I kind of feel like I know what to expect.

This is the third time I'll be going down to one of these events. I still don't know everything I'd like to know. Last time (pre-GW Tyranid FAQ), I left Hive Tyrants/Swarmlords out of my list entirely (couldn't be sure how they'd interact with the Tyrant Guard), as well as not bringing the Doom (no clue how that would work) or a Mawloc (could they deepstrike on enemy units, or not?). There's still no clarity on whether the Swarmlord's/Hive Tyrants +1 to Reserves works from off-table. (I can construct a similar list of questions post-FAQ, as well as one for every other army I play.)

This time, post-Tyranid FAQ, given that GW has made models in transports immune to Shadows in the Warp, it'll be interesting to see if Psychic Hoods or other anti-psychic stuff is allowed to affect models in transports, or if such equipment in transports is allowed to affect the rest of the board.

I travel to these things for fun, and to hang out with people I don't get to see all that often. But "common sense," isn't; uncertainty is not a virtue. I end up just avoiding the uncertain areas where possible in creating my army, and wondering what'll happen if some of my opponents have psychic hoods in their transports, or are using the Blue Scribes, or are using Storm Caller on vehicles, or....

Hive Tyrant working when off-table is a PERFECT example.

Having a judge come over to make a spot ruling on LOS, cover saves or just to confirm commonly confused rules is perfectly fine.

Having an unverified global army-wide ability just be a coin toss? For one thing, my spore pod based tyranid army goes from powerful to completely unplayable with just the casual poor ruling by a judge.

Its not something that a tyranid player can just go into a tournament saying "we'll just see how the judges feel."

The alternative here is to get a written note or "hall pass" from the TO, print it out and clutch it in your grip like living death, prepared to thrust it in the face of a judge who doesn't agree with the TO. Even then, it may be akin to asking an umpire to chance a strike call to a ball, because the guys in the announcers booth didn't agree.

Why couldn't psychic hoods affect units in transports?

Monster Rain wrote:Why couldn't psychic hoods affect units in transports?

The rules are actually silent on the issue. This only became a problem once the Tyranid FAQ came out, and said that Shadow in the Warp does NOT affect a psyker inside a vehicle.

Both SitW and a Hood anti-psychic defenses, having a discrete range of effect (ignoring the "old style" hoods for the moment). If the former doesn't affect a unit that happens to be "inside" their metal box, is it safe to assume that the latter does? What about Runes of Warding (which are almost identical in effect with SitW, but for the lack of a range limitation)?

What does common sense tell us now?

Shep - believe me, the Tyranid reserves rules are near and dear to my heart. But it's not hard to find similar examples across the game - there's a reason the INAT is 118 pages long, and it's not all "common sense" answers.

But while we're on the subject - hey Phazael, do Hive Commander & Alien Cunning work while the Tyrant & Swarmlord are themselves in Reserves?

To me, it would seem that if the Psyker was in the vehicle and it was within 24" of the Psychic Hood it would be affected.

These beardy rules loopholes don't seem to come up all that often outside of YMDC, at least in my experience at tournaments. And I've been to quite a few.

Feel free to set me straight, Phazael.

Tyranid Questions:

Hive Commander and Alien Cunning do function while the model possesing the ability is itself in reserves, for the purposes of SCGWL events. Given that Autarchs confer the bonuses, I am going with that as precedend.

Spore Pods that are tank shocked must Death or Glory, since they are unable to move out of the way.

Since Shadows does not affect an embarked psycher, then it follows that Runes of Warding, Psychic Hoods, and the Runepriest Staff will also not affect models embarked in transports. Its a stupid ruling by GW, but if the sword cuts both ways until GW explicitly states otherwise.

This is exactly how I ruled it at Hard Boyz finals and until GW FAQs speak on the matter, this is how I will handle those specific situations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
pro tip- The best way to get GW to alter a ruling in a FAQ is to demonstrate that it negatively impacts Space Marines in some manner (see Counter Attack / Furious Charge with Straken debacle).

Sounds fair.

Why GW? Why did you do that to Shadows in the Warp?