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.

Breng77 wrote:

- The following weapons are considered to be Boltguns when using the Standard of Devastation; Boltguns, Twin-linked Boltguns, Master-crafted Boltguns, Hurricane Bolters, and Combi-weapons (when fired as a Boltgun). Also note that the terms Boltgun and Bolter are always used interchangeably.

Leave off the last statement by that rational a Storm Bolter = Storm Boltgun, and then should benefit.

It is to clarify the fact that some codexes (and the Rulebook) say Bolter when they mean Boltgun and boltgun when they mean bolter. I don't think that is unclear in their response.

The thing that bugs me the most is the Heavy and Fast Attack choices are all Denial units. it is a blatant rule change and has no need for one. it changes the dynamic of those two missions tremendously.

How did this even come up as a question and why did it even get changed? By making this change, we go back to 5th Ed. where everything can Deny basically for Heavies and Fast.

Bad change. Bad ruling. Hopefully by FAQ 1.1 it will change as you guys literally just changed core rules from the game.

 pretre wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

- The following weapons are considered to be Boltguns when using the Standard of Devastation; Boltguns, Twin-linked Boltguns, Master-crafted Boltguns, Hurricane Bolters, and Combi-weapons (when fired as a Boltgun). Also note that the terms Boltgun and Bolter are always used interchangeably.

Leave off the last statement by that rational a Storm Bolter = Storm Boltgun, and then should benefit.

It is to clarify the fact that some codexes (and the Rulebook) say Bolter when they mean Boltgun and boltgun when they mean bolter. I don't think that is unclear in their response.

Don't see the need for this the banner only effects one codex. I think the ruling makes it more confusing (never seen anyone have the issue you are saying.) If they want to make a general statement it should be placed in the BRB section not DA specific (though I think the Rulebook is clear that a Boltgun is a bolter.

"Please note, this is a working draft of the FAQ as voted upon by a council of Independent Tournament Organizers and is subject to change. This overrides any previous rulings I have made. This is also the FAQ you will see at many events, including Adepticon, WargamesCon, Feast of Blades, etc. so the rulings here will be in common use."

Im interested how this council of TOs was determined.

Theres an number of big tournament organizers missing from this list. The glaring being the NOVA Open. So i will assume that either MVB either wasnt approached to participate in the creation of the FAQ or more importantly did no agree with the contents. As a T.O. of relativly popular Independant Tournament im pretty curious as to how the council was created and why some pretty big Tournament contributers arent a part of this.

in the quote above it would seem that the intent of this is to be addopted by other T.O.s so as much as i applaud the intent i really question the validity

I'm also curious if a list of the organizers involved on the council can be provided. It's naturally your choice to run your events how you want to but I'd like to know who is making the decisions if it's possible.

Two large events that aren't noted that jump out at me are Da Boyz and Nova. Actually, I'm not seeing a single East Coast event listed on there.

Personally I think the list of people involved should include the TO of any event that has attendance of over 100 players for their main 40k event. That's assuming they want to be involved but they should at least be invited. Seems only reasonable as this would lead to a greater acceptance nationally as well.

Just some questions on points that went beyond clarifications

1. Movement amendment.....not sure about this...honestly I prefer CC to be a giant impassable block.

2. Why does Objuration Mechanicum not effect flyers?

3. Why the rule change to Swarms?

4. Why can a Rhino fire a Gun Emplacement?

5. Why the Changes to Scouring and BIg Guns, it completely throws the point/dynamic of both missions out the window

6. Would have liked to see Drop Pods not loose a hull point, but I see the reasoning

7. Drop pod part should be ammended to include other types of required reserve units

8. Plague Zombies shouldent be able to shoot, but I understand how that ruling came up

9. Blatant change from GWs FAQ on the Helldrake Baleflamer

10. Darkshroud ruling, exact opposite of GW FAQ

11. Lelith...shouldent by I see why

12. Valk/Vendetta....have Scout...so why can they not outflank. It makes the rule completely useless, since they cannot start on the table

13. Why the deviation on Whip Coils from the GW FAQ

I appreciate the effort put into this...but I get really worried when TOs start ruling the opposite of GWs FAQ (while accepting some parts of the same FAQ/Eratta)

Have to disagree with Vend/Valks not outflanking.
Its clear the FAQ was in response to the rediculous supposition of trying to use 'redeployment' to bring a required reserve unit on the board.
However, its clearly written in the "Scouts" USR that Scout confers "Outflank."
If the intent was to NOT allow V&Vs to outflank they would have removed the 'Scout' rule in the FAQ or by Errata.
GW did not. Therefore, Valks/Vends and every other Vehicle that has the Scout USR gets Outflank.

Otherwise for consistency sake you will have to not allow ANY Vehicle with Scout that is in reserve to enter via Outflank; Baal Predators, C:SM Land Speeders of all types, Eldar Warwalkers.
It would also invalidate putting a Scout Squad in a transport (the unit giving the dedicated transport the Scout USR), then outflanking the unit (since they are now in a vehicle).

Drop Pods
- ruling A -When a drop pod deploys it is treated as suffering an immobilized damage result and removes a hull point.

I get it, but I disagree. The next ruling trips me up though:

- ruling B - If a drop pod deploys into dangerous terrain and fails its DT test, it is treated as an already immobilized vehicle suffering a second immobilized result. It therefore removes two more hull points and is wrecked.

I add this up to 2 Hull points, not 3 to wreck it.

Let's say, I scatter into a lava flow or on to a previous Wreck (Dangerous). So, according to bullet #1, one Hull Point goes.

I roll for Dangerous Terrain and get the . Then ruling B has me lose *two* more Hull Points, for a total of 3, wrecking the Pod.

Can someone explain that to me?

Brothererekose wrote:
Can someone explain that to me?

If you suffer an "immobilized" result on a vehicle that is already immobilized you instead remove an additional hull point. So -1 HP on arrival for the first "immobilized" result on arrival, -1 for taking the second "immobilized" result in dangerous terrain, and -1 for the substitute effect, for a total of -3.

Well today was an interesting day …It feels like people are jumping the gun a little bit. Hopefully I can clarify a couple of questions, concerns and issues that people might seem to have.

First, let’s address the word “Independent tournament organizers” FAQ or “ITO.

The INAT FAQ and its purpose was to provide the following scope: (straight from the previous FAQ document)
The purpose of this FAQ is to give players advance knowledge of how tournament judges will be ruling the myriad of tricky situations that arise in games of 40k at the event they are planning to attend. Please remember that miniature gaming is meant to be fun. FAQs are not a replacement for common sense and good sportsmanship. Players are always expected to calmly attempt to resolve differences in opinion before consulting with a tournament judge

Previous groups were able to leverage the FAQ and it had a large impact in North America as everyone knows.

That being said the people involved who are tournament organizers are not creating an INAT council or a group to replace what the INAT did. There is no "ITO Council or FAQ council" This is to be leveraged by our tournaments only and was mainly going to be rolled out as BAO FAQ, Adepticon FAQ, Wargames con FAQ and Feast of Blades FAQ, etc. If other groups want to leverage the FAQ that we create sure that is great but we are not forcing a faq on them.
It makes sense for us to work together as a small group and likeminded individuals while leveraging resources for us to create a FAQ and allow some consistency between events. This is all that is going.

Also our scope wasn’t to answer every question that the INAT did before. That way we can reduce the length changes and just clarify some obvious questions that need to be answered.

Second this is a working Draft

Reece had his event coming up very soon and needed to get a working idea in front of people as FAQ’s could change people’s armies and ideas for play. Things are subject to change and we were sure people would have other questions or questions would arise from the FAQ document that we created. This allows us to make a tighter document in the future and clarify questions.

As for the people who are putting this together it shouldn’t matter as the group isn’t looking to do what the INAT did and is only looking to make their events better. I am more than happy to ask questions but want to clarify some of the confusion.

Nick Rose
Wargames Con organizer.

 Peregrine wrote:

Brothererekose wrote:
Can someone explain that to me?

If you suffer an "immobilized" result on a vehicle that is already immobilized you instead remove an additional hull point. So -1 HP on arrival for the first "immobilized" result on arrival, -1 for taking the second "immobilized" result in dangerous terrain,

I understand up to this point, but

 Peregrine wrote:
and -1 for the substitute effect, for a total of -3.

What is this 'substitute' effect? I don't see where *that* is coming from.

Lands - gets immobilized subtract a Hull Point.
In the ssame landing, it drifts into DT, biffs the DT roll, suffers another Immobilize.

That's two, not three.

Checking the BRB page 74, simply states to just remove an additional HP if it's already Immobilized. Not remove two.

Now, game-wise, I'm pretty sure this will rarely come up. Most DPs are arriving Turn 1, and not likely to have DT to scatter into, so this prolly won't come up. It just seems *really* cock-eyed to chock up 3 HPs, for two Immobilize results;
1. the landing, and
2. the failed DT

 Hulksmash wrote:
I'm also curious if a list of the organizers involved on the council can be provided. It's naturally your choice to run your events how you want to but I'd like to know who is making the decisions if it's possible.

Two large events that aren't noted that jump out at me are Da Boyz and Nova. Actually, I'm not seeing a single East Coast event listed on there.

Personally I think the list of people involved should include the TO of any event that has attendance of over 100 players for their main 40k event. That's assuming they want to be involved but they should at least be invited. Seems only reasonable as this would lead to a greater acceptance nationally as well.

The final document produced does have a list of who is involved creating this document. And to be clear to everyone: This is an effort made by the events using this document. NOVA, for example, creates their own FAQ document and so has no need for this. This is not the INAT. Although several events are getting together to try to hammer out a FAQ that they all will use, ultimately each event can still present a slightly different version of the document for their particular event.

One of the big reasons to try to get the size down on the document is specifically so that it can be easily changed between events if need be. This is not to say that there WILL BE changes between events, but just that the possibility exists.

And in case anyone is wondering, although I do not have the time nor the inclination to currently be able to actually write something like the INAT anymore, if you haven't figured it out already from my responses in this thread, I am still at least involved in helping them make this.

Brothererekose wrote:
What is this 'substitute' effect? I don't see where *that* is coming from.

If you're already immobilized, replace the "immobilized" effect with an additional HP loss.

Checking the BRB page 74, simply states to just remove an additional HP if it's already Immobilized. Not remove two.

The second one is for failing a dangerous terrain roll. The additional HP lost for a second "immobilized" result is in addition to the one you lose from whatever generated that "immobilized" result. So, for example, a penetrating hit that inflicts a second "immobilized" result would mean you lose 2 HP.

Now, game-wise, I'm pretty sure this will rarely come up. Most DPs are arriving Turn 1, and not likely to have DT to scatter into, so this prolly won't come up.

All area terrain is dangerous for vehicles. So if you attempt to arrive in area terrain (or just scatter there) and fail the dangerous terrain roll your drop pod will be destroyed on arrival.

 Peregrine wrote:

Brothererekose wrote:
What is this 'substitute' effect? I don't see where *that* is coming from.

If you're already immobilized, replace the "immobilized" effect with an additional HP loss.

Correct. 1 add'l HP. Not two.

Brothererekose wrote:
Checking the BRB page 74, simply states to just remove an additional HP if it's already Immobilized. Not remove two.

 Peregrine wrote:
The second one is for failing a dangerous terrain roll. The additional

Do you mean a 3rd HP?

 Peregrine wrote:
HP lost for a second "immobilized" result is in addition to the one you lose from whatever generated that "immobilized" result. So, for example, a penetrating hit that inflicts a second "immobilized" result would mean you lose 2 HP.

Now, right here is where I ask, "Huh?" Two total, or two more? How?

Thanks for prompt and patient relies!

What is the purpose Darkwynn of changing core rules like allowing all heavies to deny in the big gunz missions or fast attack in the scouring?

It seems the council.got.together and changed some things youguys dont like... There is no reason to change a core rule to the game or the.missions...it makes playing those missions totally different than theyre written in the real rulebook... Out of the small group of you guys, did the question of allowing vehicles that are heavies or fast attack deny really come up? Find that hard to believe especially bexause it is so clear in the book... Changing core rules is not an FAQ, thats called changing the rules and thus we play a new game that was not written by GW but a secret council thay we know has about 4 members so far

Can you explain that rule change which i believe is by far the biggest thing you guys changed?

I suspect they changed it because a lot of players find the concept of a unit being scoring but not denial to be unintuitive, it trips a lot of folks up, and the majority of the folks voting believed it to be an error/oversight on GW's part, rather than a deliberate distinction.

BE, anything that inflicts a damage result normally inflicts one HP. So, first immobilized = lose one HP and Immobilized. Then the vehicle damage chart tells us that any subsequent immobilzed results cause the loss of an additional hull point. So that second damaging result STARTS by dealing a second hull point no matter what you roll as a result, then when it's Immobilized it loses an additional HP, which makes a total of three. Conceptually, basically any Penetrating damage result does TWO things, whereas a Glance just causes a single HP loss. So first Immob = Immob & a HP, and second Immob = 2HP.

rigeld2 wrote:

- The Objuration Mechanicum psychic power has no effect on Zooming Flyers.

Why? It's a Malediction so it doesn't roll to hit. This is an outright change to the rules instead of a clarification.

Because it inflicts an automatic hit and GW has made it pretty darn clear that anything that hits automatically. Now I agree that the other effects of the power (re-rolling hits and wound rolls of 6) should probably still apply and I will bring that point up.

rigeld2 wrote:

- Jump Infantry is a subclass of Infantry, and therefore Jump Infantry models are affected normally by the Jaws of the World Wolf psychic power.

Should also note Jump Monstrous Creatures.

You're right. However one thing to note is that: this document does not contain rules, and should never be read as such. These are clarifications about how a judge will rule some common tournament questions. So if Jump Monstrous Creatures is left of the list, for example, by default this doesn't mean it isn't also affected. Rather, Jump Infantry is the more common question and so is being answered. However, you can easily infer from the clarification presented as-is, that it would also affect Jump Monstrous Creatures. But yes, I will try to get that included because it is simple to do so.

rigeld2 wrote:

- A Doom Scythe’s Death Ray is a hull mounted weapon.

Should clarify where LoS is drawn from. Anywhere on the hull? The weapon?

Like all weapons, you measure line of sight from the weapon down the barrel (with the 45 degree arc of sight for being a hull mounted weapon).

rigeld2 wrote:

- A successful Feel No Pain roll does not negate the armor reducing effects of the Entropic Strike special rule.

Interesting stance. Now - is this going to be consistent for every ability with an unsaved wound as the trigger?
If you're going to change the rules at least be consistent.

Note that Entropic Strike is resolved 'immediately' when an unsaved wound is inflicted. Based on GW's ruling regarding the force effect (which also happens immediately) vs. FNP, this same principle was applied.

I cannot say how this would be applied to other things that are simply triggered at the same time as FNP but not noted as being 'immediate', but that should probably be included in the document.

rigeld2 wrote:

- If Prince Yriel chooses to use his Eye of Wrath

I assume you're going to be ruling similarly for other abilities that are used in combat/CC? I know Chaos has one and so do Daemons.

If you find out what those are, then I can let you know (or at least try to get them in the document if they need to be clarified).

rigeld2 wrote:

- Dark Angels units using the Deathwing Assault special rule are ignored for the purposes of calculating the number of units that may be held in Reserves.

Why? Just because they used to be able to? I'd love to hear a reasoning behind this.

Because you select the units for DA immediately after rolling for Warlord Powers but before players actually start deploying, which is when they determine how many units may be put into reserve. So the judgement is made that at the time that decision comes around, those units making a DA are already taken out of the equation.

rigeld2 wrote:

- LoS for a Helldrake with a Baleflamer

But not with a Hades Autocannon? Why?

I answered this above with the Jump Monstrous Creature. The Baleflamer is the common question so it is clarified. The fact that it doesn't mention the Hades Autocannon does not mean the same logic would not be applied.

rigeld2 wrote:

- Weapons mounted on a Flyer model can swivel downward up to 45 degrees, even if the barrel on the model itself cannot physically do that. [pg. 72, W40KRB]

Is this 45 degrees down from level, despite the fact that the rules say 45 degrees *total* (so 22.5 down)? Also, can the model shoot through itself - meaning can the top turret on a Stormraven shoot through the cockpit?

I won't comment on the vertical pivot question for now, except to say that this is a first draft and is still evolving.

Why would a weapon be able to shoot through the vehicle its mounted on? There are a few exceptions (Helldrake, for example), but these are the exceptions because in general you have to draw line of sight from the weapon mount down the barrel of the gun (or at least imagine you are in the case of fixed weapons).

rigeld2 wrote:
Need to rule on Spirit Leech - is it resolved as a Shooting Attack (and therefore things like the Skyshield invul works against it) or a special rule that causes wounds (similar to Soul Blaze) and also what method of allocation to use (Random or opponents choice - the latter has precedent in Soul Blaze).

Okay, will add that to the list.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

SCP Yeeman wrote:
What is the purpose Darkwynn of changing core rules like allowing all heavies to deny in the big gunz missions or fast attack in the scouring?

It seems the council.got.together and changed some things youguys dont like... There is no reason to change a core rule to the game or the.missions...it makes playing those missions totally different than theyre written in the real rulebook... Out of the small group of you guys, did the question of allowing vehicles that are heavies or fast attack deny really come up? Find that hard to believe especially bexause it is so clear in the book... Changing core rules is not an FAQ, thats called changing the rules and thus we play a new game that was not written by GW but a secret council thay we know has about 4 members so far

Can you explain that rule change which i believe is by far the biggest thing you guys changed?

Again, this document is created by the tournament organizers for the events that they are hosting. So this is a clarification of how the judges will rule at these events. This is not a 'secret council' out there trying to change game rules, but rather ANSWER the common questions that people have so that they know what to expect.

And again, it is a first draft, so some rulings may potentially be evaluated and changed.

Yak, the third CSM clarification is not needed, as the Daemons FAQ completely forbids them being joined by allied ICs anyway.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Yak, the third CSM clarification is not needed, as the Daemons FAQ completely forbids them being joined by allied ICs anyway.

Yeah, thanks! Someone already pointed that out, so it will most definitely get the axe I'd imagine.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chumbalaya wrote:

- Models completely out of LoS of the firing unit can be hit by a blast template and add wounds to the wound pool for the shooting attack. However, models completely out of LoS cannot have unsaved wounds allocated to them, and so cannot be removed as a casualties.

These rules changes make no sense and directly contradict the rulebook.

Actually, I think the blast weapon ruling more closely follows the RAW than anything else.

Per the RB, Blast weapons can hit and cause wounds on UNITS out of line of sight, which is fine. But there is no permission granted to allocate wounds onto models completely out of LOS. And in fact the blast rules then say:

'Wounds are then allocated on the unit as for a normal shooting attack.'


So sure, you can disagree and think the intent of the rule was to allow models out of LOS to become casualties from a blast weapon, but at least from my personal perspective, I do not actually think that is what the RAW say.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:

 Chumbalaya wrote:

 kronk wrote:
So this means that allies of convenience can score by themselves, but can they prevent the primary detachment from scoring (and vice versa), since they treat each other as enemies?

I hate you

Note: I don't care either way, I just want clarification for how to handle it.

No, the goal of the clarification was to state that AoC units can be scoring (provided they are troops, not swarms, etc) and that they are not denial units against your own side.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:

Can Fortifications (emplaced weapons, Bastions etc) claim coversaves?

I'll see about adding that to the document.

 Mannahnin wrote:
BE, anything that inflicts a damage result normally inflicts one HP. So, first immobilized = lose one HP and Immobilized. Then the vehicle damage chart tells us that any subsequent immobilzed results cause the loss of an additional hull point. So that second damaging result STARTS by dealing a second hull point no matter what you roll as a result, then when it's Immobilized it loses an additional HP, which makes a total of three.

This statement in orange clarifies and makes sense. Thanks, Mannahnin.

Per the RB, Blast weapons can hit and cause wounds on UNITS out of line of sight, which is fine. But there is no permission granted to allocate wounds onto models completely out of LOS. And in fact the blast rules then say:

'Wounds are then allocated on the unit as for a normal shooting attack.'

All of that meaning you pull models that are closest to the firing unit first. Not that x-number of models under the blast marker are safe from being killed.
The idea being to distinguish how models are removed from an Ordnance hit (closest to farthest) from how they are removed from a Barrage Blast (removing closest to the center of the blast).

 Lightcavalier wrote:
4. Why can a Rhino fire a Gun Emplacement?

8. Plague Zombies shouldent be able to shoot, but I understand how that ruling came up

Because they are models with a BS above 0. If GW didn't want vehicles to be able to fire a Gun Emplacement, they should have said so!

 Lightcavalier wrote:
9. Blatant change from GWs FAQ on the Helldrake Baleflamer

Did you perhaps misread the clarification? It is basically just explaining where you draw LOS from (the weapon mount). GW's FAQ simply says that you measure RANGE from the base of the model. LOS is still drawn from the weapon mount (which is all the clarification is saying).

 Lightcavalier wrote:
10. Darkshroud ruling, exact opposite of GW FAQ

Please elaborate, because I've looked at this issue and I do not see what you're saying. The only problem with the clarification is that it erroneously says 'Dark Talon' instead of 'Darkshroud' at the end.

 Lightcavalier wrote:
13. Why the deviation on Whip Coils from the GW FAQ

What deviation? We're talking about two effects that occur simultaneously at the start of the fight sub-phase. Per the RB, this means the player whose turn it is, decides what order to resolve these effects.


---


And the only thing I can say about the Big Guns Never Tire & Scouring rulings is that I wasn't present for that discussion so I can't tell you the reasoning behind it, but again, this is a first draft so things may change.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

dkellyj wrote:
Per the RB, Blast weapons can hit and cause wounds on UNITS out of line of sight, which is fine. But there is no permission granted to allocate wounds onto models completely out of LOS. And in fact the blast rules then say:

'Wounds are then allocated on the unit as for a normal shooting attack.'

All of that meaning you pull models that are closest to the firing unit first. Not that x-number of models under the blast marker are safe from being killed.
The idea being to distinguish how models are removed from an Ordnance hit (closest to farthest) from how they are removed from a Barrage Blast (removing closest to the center of the blast).

Yes, you pull models from closest to the firers AND models that are completely out of range/LOS of all the firers cannot have wounds allocated to them.

While I personally think the intent of the rule was probably designed to somehow allow models out of LOS to be killed by a blast, the implementation of the rule (which is largely a copy-pase of the previous rulebook wording) is so sloppily handled that it makes it very hard to make a coherent ruling in favor of that.

So if you do go back and look at the rule you will see that it only refers to UNITS being hit and wounded out of LOS, which works perfectly fine within the rules while still allowing those wounds to potentially be wasted if it is then found that there are no actual models within LOS so as to validly allocate those wounds onto them.

@darkwynn

I understand this isn't suppose to be something of the extent of the INAT. I don't expect or want that

It seemed to be presented as a Indy Tournament FAQ. It seems like this is a golden opportunity to create a solid document across the scope of the US. Something I know has been expressed by TO's like Reece and Mike Brandt. Having an FAQ for your event (like Reece did for his events previously) seems a silly reason to not open it up.

Seems like there are like minded inviduals who might be interested who haven't been invited to join the party so to speak. Did people reach out to Da Boyz or Brandt? What about some of the other east coast events that sell out regularly for decent sized events?

As a player who travels to events I'd love it if they were all on the same page. From East to West and North to South it would be amazing. And I think with the crop of TO's out there we could at least get all the major to hit events on the same page. Just feels like a squandered opportunity to me.

And while I won't agree with all the decisions (lord how I won't and I accept that) at least it'll be consistant across the country for the most part

 Hulksmash wrote:
@darkwynn

I understand this isn't suppose to be something of the extent of the INAT. I don't expect or want that

It seemed to be presented as a Indy Tournament FAQ. It seems like this is a golden opportunity to create a solid document across the scope of the US. Something I know has been expressed by TO's like Reece and Mike Brandt. Having an FAQ for your event (like Reece did for his events previously) seems a silly reason to not open it up.

Seems like there are like minded inviduals who might be interested who haven't been invited to join the party so to speak. Did people reach out to Da Boyz or Brandt? What about some of the other east coast events that sell out regularly for decent sized events?

As a player who travels to events I'd love it if they were all on the same page. From East to West and North to South it would be amazing. And I think with the crop of TO's out there we could at least get all the major to hit events on the same page. Just feels like a squandered opportunity to me.

And while I won't agree with all the decisions (lord how I won't and I accept that) at least it'll be consistant across the country for the most part

Just to point out: that was the point of the INAT. We did have Brandt and Jay from DaBoyz onboard perviously. Yet, the particular needs for certain events meant that they didn't want to use the INAT (for example, the NOVA wants a document small enough to include in every player packet). Cutting down the size of the document could fit the bill for what NOVA is looking for, but I think the biggest issue was just getting something done ASAP for the events that previously used the INAT and therefore were in need of a FAQ.

I don't speak for anyone when I say this, but I'm sure if events want to get onboard with using this document then it will eventually happen and your dream scenario can and will occur. Or maybe certain events just like having autonomy (which is definitely the case sometimes) and just aren't really interested or think they can do a better job themselves.

Darkwynn wrote:That being said the people involved who are tournament organizers are not creating an INAT council or a group to replace what the INAT did. There is no "ITO Council or FAQ council" This is to be leveraged by our tournaments only and was mainly going to be rolled out as BAO FAQ, Adepticon FAQ, Wargames con FAQ and Feast of Blades FAQ, etc. If other groups want to leverage the FAQ that we create sure that is great but we are not forcing a faq on them.
It makes sense for us to work together as a small group and likeminded individuals while leveraging resources for us to create a FAQ and allow some consistency between events. This is all that is going.

I find this an interesting answer... Nick so what your telling everyone is a Tournament FAQ created by T.O.s from some of the biggest tournaments in North America wasnt intended to influence the gaming community and be leveraged as the defacto "go to faq for other Tournaments? A Tournament faq created with the assistance of the creator of the inat faq who doesnt intend on continuing its creation? A faq created by TO's who have been very vocal in these very forums about creating a comprehensive Tournament faq ?

Darkwynn wrote:Also our scope wasn’t to answer every question that the INAT did before. That way we can reduce the length changes and just clarify some obvious questions that need to be answered.

In the vacuum of a non inat faqed 6th edition what is being created here is a replacement to the inat, involving (with the glaring lack of involvement from Mike Brandt)you,chandler,reece and matthias with the help of yakface. This isnt some little fix for some small time Tournaments. I find it hard to believe that you 5 guys dont think this will be considered as the replacement to the old inat faq.

Darkwynn wrote:
As for the people who are putting this together it shouldn’t matter as the group isn’t looking to do what the INAT did and is only looking to make their events better. I am more than happy to ask questions but want to clarify some of the confusion.

It does matter whos involved because of the above comments i made. Why did these 4 events come together and not Nova ?I think if i was organizing this i would reach out to all of the people involved in major Tournaments across the US. Im going to assume the lack of a clear answer due to Mike not being approached ? Why would he not be included in creating a comprehensive ITfaq ?

Darkwynn wrote:
Nick Rose
Wargames Con organizer.

Wouldn't the obvious reason for Mike not being involved be that he had previously made clear his preference to use his own FAQ rather than INAT? Also he might just not have needed/wanted to get in on this first draft, which they've expressed they were rushing on because Reece needs it ASAP for BAO.

That being said, given the format and brief length of this new FAQ, I could certainly see it as being more compatible with his needs and preferred approach, and I'd be surprised if they're not discussing his possible involvement on a future iteration.

 yakface wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
I'm also curious if a list of the organizers involved on the council can be provided. It's naturally your choice to run your events how you want to but I'd like to know who is making the decisions if it's possible.

Two large events that aren't noted that jump out at me are Da Boyz and Nova. Actually, I'm not seeing a single East Coast event listed on there.

Personally I think the list of people involved should include the TO of any event that has attendance of over 100 players for their main 40k event. That's assuming they want to be involved but they should at least be invited. Seems only reasonable as this would lead to a greater acceptance nationally as well.

The final document produced does have a list of who is involved creating this document. And to be clear to everyone: This is an effort made by the events using this document. NOVA, for example, creates their own FAQ document and so has no need for this. This is not the INAT. Although several events are getting together to try to hammer out a FAQ that they all will use, ultimately each event can still present a slightly different version of the document for their particular event.

One of the big reasons to try to get the size down on the document is specifically so that it can be easily changed between events if need be. This is not to say that there WILL BE changes between events, but just that the possibility exists.

And in case anyone is wondering, although I do not have the time nor the inclination to currently be able to actually write something like the INAT anymore, if you haven't figured it out already from my responses in this thread, I am still at least involved in helping them make this.

So mike does A comprehensive faq for his tournament of over 300 40k players and even updates them for other tournaments to use at theres and you guys decided he wasnt worthy of being asked to help create this....or have the NOVA open be part of it ?

NOVA and FOB held there tournaments post 6th edition and had faqs for there tournaments....yet only FOB was given a pass in this regard.

The assumption ive made about NOVAs exclusion from the ITfaq is due to the lack of a simple yes or no answer... either Nova was asked and refused or Mike was never asked. I find it hard to believe Mike would refuse such an offer so i will assume Nova wasnt asked. I also find it hard to take seriously a faq not including what i consider to be in the top 3 North American 40k Tournaments.

Its a shame really...because i know many smaller tournament organizers such as myself would find it helpful to base our faqs off of a faq used by the bigger Tournaments. this isnt it however.....

Zed, the way you're talking about this seems to assume some sort of hostility or disrespect, which I don't think is warranted or helpful.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it's better practice to assume good faith rather than the opposite, especially when we're talking about well-respected and generally nice guys like Jon and Reece.

zedsdead wrote:

I find this an interesting answer... Nick so what your telling everyone is a Tournament FAQ created by T.O.s from some of the biggest tournaments in North America wasnt intended to influence the gaming community and be leveraged as the defacto "go to faq for other Tournaments? A Tournament faq created with the assistance of the creator of the inat faq who doesnt intend on continuing its creation? A faq created by TO's who have been very vocal in these very forums about creating a comprehensive Tournament faq ?

In the vacuum of a non inat faqed 6th edition what is being created here is a replacement to the inat, involving (with the glaring lack of involvement from Mike Brandt)you,chandler,reece and matthias with the help of yakface. This isnt some little fix for some small time Tournaments. I find it hard to believe that you 5 guys dont think this will be considered as the replacement to the old inat faq.

The only reason the INAT is not continuing is because I can't afford the time anymore to put into its creation (its a whole lot easier to give commentary and feedback then it is to write and edit the whole thing).

That leaves a void at the events that formerly utilized the INAT that has to be filled by a FAQ. Rather than have each event take the time to write a FAQ separately, they decided to get together to write it at the same time.

This is not an INAT replacement, and is not intended to be a 'standard' in any way. It is made by and for very specific events.

It does matter whos involved because of the above comments i made. Why did these 4 events come together and not Nova ?I think if i was organizing this i would reach out to all of the people involved in major Tournaments across the US. Im going to assume the lack of a clear answer due to Mike not being approached ? Why would he not be included in creating a comprehensive ITfaq ?

The NOVA Open uses its own FAQ and therefore does not need a FAQ, simple as that.

I'm sure if Mike likes what he sees with the new format and wants to get onboard it will eventually happen.

Aside from providing a place to collect questions normally sent directly to AdeptiCon, I personally have nothing to do with the FAQ or the answers therein.