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.

Mannahnin wrote: 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?

Why would it be obvious that someone listed as a "FAQ ruling council" participant wouldnt want to be a part of this ? Why would he have preference to a faq that was outdated for the edition he used in the NOVA 2012.

Mannahnin wrote: 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.

Maybe ? Who knows.... thats why i asked. Why was Chandler invited to participate when his Tournament is 2 months later than Novas ? Why Wargamescon ? June ? Reece seems to be the one looking to rush out a faq for his tournament. I would think a guy like Mike would be a big help to bring that to fruition...dont you ?

Mannahnin wrote: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.

Thats where we agree... I see this being a perfect fit for Mike and NOVA. However since major players are avoiding the 800 lb elephant in the room i will assume this might not be the case...and i wonder why.

Additionally, AdeptiCon is actually against the standardization of formats, missions and even FAQs. It has always been out intention to use the answers produced as a baseline on which to build our own event-specific document. While it will undoubtably bear many similarities to documents produced for other events, it will be an "AdeptiCon FAQ" and not expected to be used outside those confines.

As I have said a hundred times:

FAQs at AdeptiCon exist to serve as transparency prior to arriving at our event and to ensure that rules calls across all events are consistent. It is not meant to force individual players to play the game in a way they do not enjoy. It is also meant to be the last resort in resolving disputes - NOT a first-response document. As long as both players agree on how to play their game, the rulings in an FAQ do not need to be invoked. Only in the case of a definitive, unresolvable dispute between two players is the FAQ intended for use.

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 (and therefore referencing the Tournament FAQ).

This is the core principle regarding the use of any FAQ at AdeptiCon. It acts only as an arbiter when all other avenues of resolution have been exhausted.

Rulebook > GW FAQ > Table Resolution > Floor Judge > Head Judge > Tournament FAQ

For reference, our official conduct policy regarding rules disputes is:

Rules Disputes: Rules disputes are bound to occur at an event this large and varied in attendance. Players should attempt to resolve all rules disputes between themselves at the table (using the appropriate codex, rulebook, FAQ). If this fails, contact a Floor Judge who will attempt to resolve the dispute using the appropriate game system documents. In some extreme situations, a Floor Judge reserves the right to escalate issues to the Head Rules Judge (if the event has one) – his/her decision is final.

 Mannahnin wrote:
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.

I always practice the assumption of good faith until i sense the hint of deception.

When i posted the question Mannahnin i expected a response that would answer a simple question. I was actually suprised by the "side stepping" nature of darkwyn and yakfaces responses. I think we have the right to know why people were invited into this and why certain people werent. I think we have the right to know if this was created by a cliq of guys only interested in patting each other on the back...or was this put together with people of like minds who might not always agree.

Im not interested in a faq by a buch of guys voting yes on every issue because thats how they "play it" Im interested in a faq created by people who arent looking to satisfy there own agendas.

zedsdead wrote:

Thats where we agree... I see this being a perfect fit for Mike and NOVA. However since major players are avoiding the 800 lb elephant in the room i will assume this might not be the case...and i wonder why.

I think you're trying to pull out some reality that just doesn't exist that people are looking to somehow block Mike out from something, which, to my knowledge is simply not the case.

This was about need, plain and simple. Some events needed a FAQ, so got together to make one. Nothing more sinister than that. NOVA has always had its own FAQ and so is not in need of one.

I'm sure if they like what they see in the new format and want to get onboard then it will happen.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

zedsdead wrote:
I always practice the assumption of good faith until i sense the hint of deception.

When i posted the question Mannahnin i expected a response that would answer a simple question. I was actually suprised by the "side stepping" nature of darkwyn and yakfaces responses. I think we have the right to know why people were invited into this and why certain people werent. I think we have the right to know if this was created by a cliq of guys only interested in patting each other on the back...or was this put together with people of like minds who might not always agree.

Im not interested in a faq by a buch of guys voting yes on every issue because thats how they "play it" Im interested in a faq created by people who arent looking to satisfy there own agendas.

You keep progressing towards the narrative that this is a FAQ designed to force people to play a certain way...again this is an event FAQ for specific events.

Adepticon and Wargames con got together originally to make a FAQ because the INAT was not going to be available. After they started, they brought on the BAO and Feast of Blades because both those events showed interest in also needing a FAQ and wanting to create and use something shared like this.

So this is a FAQ for those 4 specific events...nothing more.

And the only reason I'm even involved is because I have experience with the myriad of issues involved with putting something like this together.

The point being - AdeptiCon has a very specific agenda in mind when we produce or adopt an FAQ.

See my post above.

We are not concerned with being absolute or 'correct', as those terms mean nothing in a document of this nature. The forewarning is far more important than the perceived correctness of any answer. Better to know it now than on April 18th.

Answers now or answers later, there will always be people that will find fault in those answers.

yakface wrote:


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).

Never questioned you about not continuing it... its a massive undertaking and i applaud all you did.

yakface wrote: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.

Obviously you were approached to add commentary. There seems to have been a concerted effort by someone to bring these events together in a mutual sharing of ideas and thoughts to fixing tournament problems. Mike has what i consider a "good start" on a 6th edition tournament faq. a faq that has gone through about 8 months of use... im still scratching my head as to why this has caused Mike to be excluded and not included.

yakface wrote: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.

"40k Independent Tournament faq" implies much more than some being created for very "specific" events. Ill have to see if there is validity to it.

yakface wrote:

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.

So this implies he wasnt approached to have NOVA involved and only once he agrees to "get onboard" with what was already created, will he be invited to participate.

I guess its as good of an answer as were going to get... be it an interesting one.

And to zeds question - AdeptiCon was asked via a third party (that is - not the NOVA) if we had interest in adopting the NOVA FAQ. Based on what I said above, you can see why we would not be interested in this in the simple sense.

I personally related that info to a few people involved in the initial FAQ calls (AdeptiCon and Wargames Con folks) and suggested they look at what other events have already done (particularly the NOVA and addendum produced for the BfS event) as it would provide a great starting point for common questions. As to how much those documents where referenced, I have no idea, but our goal was never one of standardization or assembling a grand council of TOs. It was to produce an AdeptiCon FAQ possibly informed by other events.

 Matthias wrote:
Additionally, AdeptiCon is actually against the standardization of formats, missions and even FAQs. It has always been out intention to use the answers produced as a baseline on which to build our own event-specific document. While it will undoubtably bear many similarities to documents produced for other events, it will be an "AdeptiCon FAQ" and not expected to be used outside those confines.

fair enough Matthius, but you do realize that participating in a panel of TO'S developing a faq in conjunction with each other to rush out a faq for the BAO implies that adepticon is for the standardization FAQs right ?

And whether or not you personally are a part of it... having Adepticons name splashed all over it implies your support.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 yakface wrote:

zedsdead wrote:

Thats where we agree... I see this being a perfect fit for Mike and NOVA. However since major players are avoiding the 800 lb elephant in the room i will assume this might not be the case...and i wonder why.

I think you're trying to pull out some reality that just doesn't exist that people are looking to somehow block Mike out from something, which, to my knowledge is simply not the case.

This was about need, plain and simple. Some events needed a FAQ, so got together to make one. Nothing more sinister than that. NOVA has always had its own FAQ and so is not in need of one.

I'm sure if they like what they see in the new format and want to get onboard then it will happen.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

zedsdead wrote:
I always practice the assumption of good faith until i sense the hint of deception.

When i posted the question Mannahnin i expected a response that would answer a simple question. I was actually suprised by the "side stepping" nature of darkwyn and yakfaces responses. I think we have the right to know why people were invited into this and why certain people werent. I think we have the right to know if this was created by a cliq of guys only interested in patting each other on the back...or was this put together with people of like minds who might not always agree.

Im not interested in a faq by a buch of guys voting yes on every issue because thats how they "play it" Im interested in a faq created by people who arent looking to satisfy there own agendas.

You keep progressing towards the narrative that this is a FAQ designed to force people to play a certain way...again this is an event FAQ for specific events.

Adepticon and Wargames con got together originally to make a FAQ because the INAT was not going to be available. After they started, they brought on the BAO and Feast of Blades because both those events showed interest in also needing a FAQ and wanting to create and use something shared like this.

So this is a FAQ for those 4 specific events...nothing more.

And the only reason I'm even involved is because I have experience with the myriad of issues involved with putting something like this together.

Im confused yak.... Matthius says that adepticon doesnt look to have a standardized version of a faq yet your telling us that they came together with WGC and then invited BAO and FOB in the creation of a standardized faq for 4 of the biggest tournaments in north america ?! Yet NOVA wasnt invited because they already had a "good start" on a standardized tournament faq ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Matthias wrote:
And to zeds question - AdeptiCon was asked via a third party (that is - not the NOVA) if we had interest in adopting the NOVA FAQ. Based on what I said above, you can see why we would not be interested in this in the simple sense.

I personally related that info to a few people involved in the initial FAQ calls (AdeptiCon and Wargames Con folks) and suggested they look at what other events have already done (particularly the NOVA and addendum produced for the BoS event) as it would provide a great starting point for common questions. As to how much those documents where referenced, I have no idea, but our goal was never one of standardization or assembling a grand council of TOs. It was to produce an AdeptiCon FAQ possibly informed by other events.

I understand that Adepticon doesnt want to use the NOVA faq as there default faq.. however asking other non Adepticon Tournament organizers to participate in the creation of your faq which would also be used as there tournament faq still has the implication of standardization which you deny is the case. It also implies that Mike has nothing of value to add in the creation of a pretty major FAQ that thousands of tournament players will be using over the next year.

zedsdead wrote:

 Matthias wrote:
Additionally, AdeptiCon is actually against the standardization of formats, missions and even FAQs. It has always been out intention to use the answers produced as a baseline on which to build our own event-specific document. While it will undoubtably bear many similarities to documents produced for other events, it will be an "AdeptiCon FAQ" and not expected to be used outside those confines.

fair enough Matthius, but you do realize that participating in a panel of TO'S developing a faq in conjunction with each other to rush out a faq for the BAO implies that adepticon is for the standardization FAQs right ?

And whether or not you personally are a part of it... having Adepticons name splashed all over it implies your support.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 yakface wrote:

zedsdead wrote:

Thats where we agree... I see this being a perfect fit for Mike and NOVA. However since major players are avoiding the 800 lb elephant in the room i will assume this might not be the case...and i wonder why.

I think you're trying to pull out some reality that just doesn't exist that people are looking to somehow block Mike out from something, which, to my knowledge is simply not the case.

This was about need, plain and simple. Some events needed a FAQ, so got together to make one. Nothing more sinister than that. NOVA has always had its own FAQ and so is not in need of one.

I'm sure if they like what they see in the new format and want to get onboard then it will happen.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

zedsdead wrote:
I always practice the assumption of good faith until i sense the hint of deception.

When i posted the question Mannahnin i expected a response that would answer a simple question. I was actually suprised by the "side stepping" nature of darkwyn and yakfaces responses. I think we have the right to know why people were invited into this and why certain people werent. I think we have the right to know if this was created by a cliq of guys only interested in patting each other on the back...or was this put together with people of like minds who might not always agree.

Im not interested in a faq by a buch of guys voting yes on every issue because thats how they "play it" Im interested in a faq created by people who arent looking to satisfy there own agendas.

You keep progressing towards the narrative that this is a FAQ designed to force people to play a certain way...again this is an event FAQ for specific events.

Adepticon and Wargames con got together originally to make a FAQ because the INAT was not going to be available. After they started, they brought on the BAO and Feast of Blades because both those events showed interest in also needing a FAQ and wanting to create and use something shared like this.

So this is a FAQ for those 4 specific events...nothing more.

And the only reason I'm even involved is because I have experience with the myriad of issues involved with putting something like this together.

Im confused yak.... Matthius says that adepticon doesnt look to have a standardized version of a faq yet your telling us that they came together with WGC and then invited BAO and FOB in the creation of a standardized faq for 4 of the biggest tournaments in north america ?! Yet NOVA wasnt invited because they already had a "good start" on a standardized tournament faq ?

We get it Zed you have an axe to grind for some reason.
You are making this out to be some witch hunt and something bigger then what it really is.
You have had multiple people tell you otherwise but you don't believe any of them.
You are also hostile to everything above and are coming off as hostile.

I don't think there really is anything else to talk about because you are the one who isn't in a state to have a discussion with. I suggest taking a break and come back to this discussion with a cool and level head if you want to get somewhere with this.

What was laid out above is what it is. you don't have to leverage the FAQ and it isn't replacing the idea of what INAT was. That wasn't the point of it.

you guys need to get your stories straight... im hearing from one guy that adepticon doesnt standardize there FAQs.

Then from another involved that there was concerted effort to get together with 3 other TOs to push out a faq for BAO and other Tournaments.

Not at all. The intention, as originally discussed was to put some heads together, discuss and go our own way. There wasn't suppose to be a standardized FAQ, a ban on certain events, a council or anything of that nature. If AdeptiCon and any other event happen to use 95% of the same resolutions, fine - but each event was suppose maintain its own document specific to their event.

Simply put, we do not agree with the language used in the introduction to the document, nor is it how we originally envisioned this FAQ process cumulating.

You specifically mentioned my name above, as if I was generating these answers personally. AdeptiCon supports the process of reasoned discussion and event independence, which was the process originally envisioned, if that is no longer the active course than we will re-evaluate our participation. That isn't to say we disagree with the current crop of rulings or won't use them as a baseline to move forward.

Edit: Implying that I am saying that Mike/NOVA (or any TO or player for that matter) has no value in the community or process is incredibly insulting. I've personally been inspired by some of Mike's work, just as The NOVA has taken many pages from us in terms of organization and promotion. Like I said, I personally campaigned for The NOVA FAQ to be a baseline from which to harvest questions - so in my mind Mike was already partially involved. As it was not our intention to enter into a grand unified FAQ, I was not concerned with including every conceivable voice, just having our people bash heads with those outside our immediate sphere of influence. For me the questions are far more important the answers at this point.

Darkwynn wrote:



We get it Zed you have an axe to grind for some reason.
You are making this out to be some witch hunt and something bigger then what it really is.
You have had multiple people tell you otherwise but you don't believe any of them.
You are also hostile to everything above and are coming off as hostile.

I don't think there really is anything else to talk about because you are the one who isn't in a state to have a discussion with. I suggest taking a break and come back to this discussion with a cool and level head if you want to get somewhere with this.

What was laid out above is what it is. you don't have to leverage the FAQ and it isn't replacing the idea of what INAT was. That wasn't the point of it.

Ahhh ok so here is the meat of the issue. Once someone questions the validity and possible motives of a group of individuals its suddenly marginalized by these sort of comments and the attacks begin.

So i ask a question and get some sort of "song and dance" answer that doesnt address my original question of wether or not NOVA was asked to participate. Ive had multiple people give me conflicting answers to a pretty simple question and im now accused of being hostile for not buying into it ?

Im neither angry or in need of a break darkwyn... if you cant handle answering some pretty basic stuff without attacking me, i might suggest you remove yourself from the discussion.

 yakface wrote:

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.

I could debate that but its not worth it to me. My main point was the extra effects.

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.

I get that - truly. I'm not commenting because I think it's wrong, rather I'm trying to point out things that could be read funny and cause unnecessary question.

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.

Most if not all of the other "unsaved wound" abilities I can think of (Boneswords, Hexrifles, etc.) say "immediately" like ES does. It shouldn't be difficult to make this a more generic Q/A.

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).

Typhus' Destroyer Hive is one I'm pretty sure. Don't have my books at hand to check.

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.

That's fair - like I said I'm not posting to antagonize, simply to help improve for the second draft.

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.

Sure, no problem. Can't evolve if you're unsure what might need fixing, right? :-)

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).

Correct, but I've had people tell me I'm wrong when I tell them they can't shoot that assault cannon at my Carnifexes that are an inch away from the SRs base. They try and quote the line that says a firing models unit never blocks line of sight, etc. it happens often enough it should be mentioned IMO.

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.

Thanks!

As an aside, I'd volunteer to help with the INAT if you were still up for it.

I have to agree with zed on a lot here. If the intent is to collaborate and go your own way. Then any release of the FAQ should be event specific and not claim to be n Indy tourney FAQ (which sounds inat like.). If this is the case it sounds like some involved are co-opting the intent for a different agenda (creating an inat like document).

If the intent was to make a unified FAQ then ll major event organizers should have been approached.

Releasing a document as a Indy tourney FAQ makes it inat like whether that is the intent or not.

Breng77 wrote:
I have to agree with zed on a lot here. If the intent is to collaborate and go your own way. Then any release of the FAQ should be event specific and not claim to be n Indy tourney FAQ (which sounds inat like.). If this is the case it sounds like some involved are co-opting the intent for a different agenda (creating an inat like document).

If the intent was to make a unified FAQ then ll major event organizers should have been approached.

Releasing a document as a Indy tourney FAQ makes it inat like whether that is the intent or not.

You have to talk to Reece about why he titled the post on his site like that.

This is not a single document like the INAT. Despite what is on Reece's site, this is not 'the Indy GT FAQ'. It is going to be the Bay Area Open FAQ at the BAO, the Adepticon FAQ at Adepticon, the Wargamescon FAQ at Wargames Con and the Feast of Blades FAQ at the Feast of Blades.

Each event is totally free to change the document to fit their needs and is not designed to be used outside of their particular event.

I understand the confusion, but you have to understand that Reece needed to get something out the door ASAP because of all the rules questions he's getting, so some of the particulars of the release (such as him calling it the Indy GT FAQ) were not handled in a particularly ideal way, and this confusion about certain events being excluded, etc, is a natural blowback of that.

I can assure you, that the goal of this particular endeavor is to make a FAQ for each of those 4 events in a way that was easiest for all of them (working together). It was not meant to exclude/include certain events and not others and it is not meant to be some defacto standard.

Maybe it's too early and I've not had enough coffee, but what is the issue and hostility being thrown around this thread? A group of folks who take a lot of their own time and money to put on a few tourneys are trying to answer questions that crop up during games. They've even stated it is (1) a work in progress and (2) it is for a few events (WargamesCon, BAO, FoB and anyone else who would like a ready made product).

I remember hearing in an 11th Co podcast months ago that the FoB tourney organizer wanted to do something like this in an effort to make things easier for those who do travel to these large events; get something standardized to make life easier for the players.

This debate about it being an INAT or not; who really cares? Out of the GTs I've attended over the years, I can't even think of a time that I couldn't come to some resolution that even required anything other than what GW already put out. Perspective folks; we're playing with mandollies and generally drinking and having a fun weekend, not reworking the country's budget.

Time to make another cup of coffee.

Zed,

The simple answer is … I chose not to…. Because I had no pressing reason to invite them . Just as I had no reason to invite the ½ or more of the former INAT team including a significant number of AdeptiCon staff, the Da Boyz, the ATC organizers, the Astronomicon folks, or any host of highly qualified individuals and organizers of fantastic events around the country.

But I will make this clear ….as really the buck stops with me on this. My only concern past, present and future has been and will be to create a FAQ document for the benefit and enjoyment of AdeptiCon attendees and our slate of events. End of story.

That goes for the original AdeptiCon FAQ document. That same desire brought about teaming up with Yakface and creating the INAT, our efforts of the FW FAQ work we do and now that Yakface is no longer in a position to continue work on the INAT… that same motivation is driving the creation of this document.

To that end, I choose to achieve that goal in the most efficient , focused, and comprehensive manner possible, given time and resources available.

So with Yakface unavailable for the vast majority of heavy lifting I reached out to Nick Rose and our head judge Dave Creswell, to help in the creation of this document. Over the years, the BOLS guys have been involved in judging at AdeptiCon. AdeptiCon staff have been involved in judging at Wargamescon. Nick was going to be involved in judging the floor at AdeptiCon this year. Given the sharing of judging staff it made sense for us to collaborate on this document. From the beginning of this documents creation that was the sum total of involvement of other events beyond AdeptiCon … . Nick Rose.

Towards the latter part of the document, it became clear that we would have the Head Judge from the Feast of Blades working on the floor at AdeptiCon as well. The argument was made and discussed that with having him on the floor making calls at AdeptiCon … that he and the group would benefit from his involvement in the creation of the FAQ.. So the idea was thrown about and the decision was made by me to add him to the group.

Around that same time, Reece was getting ready for the BAO, and was looking at the task of creating a FAQ document. Given the timing, we had just gotten a draft together. I thought it made sense to have Reece come on board, review the current document, see if it was something he could work with for his event, provide feedback, work with us with the final question selection and complete the document. It takes a tremendous amount of work to generate these documents and unless you have skin in the game, or an event deadline approaching it is tough to get up for the task at hand. So Reece by my judgment was in a unique position to contribute and help.

It had been said from day 1. That Wargamescon, and now by extension FoB and BAO could do whatever they wanted with the final FAQ document, make changes as needed for their events etc. The likelihood is the FAQ document used by all of us will be similar because well we all contributed to the process of it’s development ..

Clearly, I did a poor job of communicating how the document was to be presented. So that is on me and my shoulders are wide enough here. Anyone that has a beef you can direct it my way.


We will move forward with the AdeptiCon version of this document and post it this week.



-Hank

So to me it sounds like poor execution of the wording/intent upon release. As the frontline gaming site essentially sells it as the one FAQ for all and to be in common use rather than a jumping off point for people to work from. Which is fine and it happens. I think tos working together to develop their faqs is a fine idea.

GW just released new FAQs and removed Outflank from Valks/Vendettas, so we can cross one contentious issue off the list at least!

muwhe wrote:
Zed,

The simple answer is … I chose not to…. Because I had no pressing reason to invite them . Just as I had no reason to invite the ½ or more of the former INAT team including a significant number of AdeptiCon staff, the Da Boyz, the ATC organizers, the Astronomicon folks, or any host of highly qualified individuals and organizers of fantastic events around the country.

But I will make this clear ….as really the buck stops with me on this. My only concern past, present and future has been and will be to create a FAQ document for the benefit and enjoyment of AdeptiCon attendees and our slate of events. End of story.

That goes for the original AdeptiCon FAQ document. That same desire brought about teaming up with Yakface and creating the INAT, our efforts of the FW FAQ work we do and now that Yakface is no longer in a position to continue work on the INAT… that same motivation is driving the creation of this document.

To that end, I choose to achieve that goal in the most efficient , focused, and comprehensive manner possible, given time and resources available.


Unfortunatly Hank this wasnt the way it was presented. The community is aware that both reece and Chandle have been very verbal in there desire to create a comprehensive Tournament FAQ. Personally i dont have an issue with its creation... however when i asked the "group" as a whole... not just Adepticon, why certain TOs were not involved we were given conflicting and very defensive answers.


So with Yakface unavailable for the vast majority of heavy lifting I reached out to Nick Rose and our head judge Dave Creswell, to help in the creation of this document. Over the years, the BOLS guys have been involved in judging at AdeptiCon. AdeptiCon staff have been involved in judging at Wargamescon. Nick was going to be involved in judging the floor at AdeptiCon this year. Given the sharing of judging staff it made sense for us to collaborate on this document. From the beginning of this documents creation that was the sum total of involvement of other events beyond AdeptiCon … . Nick Rose.

Towards the latter part of the document, it became clear that we would have the Head Judge from the Feast of Blades working on the floor at AdeptiCon as well. The argument was made and discussed that with having him on the floor making calls at AdeptiCon … that he and the group would benefit from his involvement in the creation of the FAQ.. So the idea was thrown about and the decision was made by me to add him to the group.

Around that same time, Reece was getting ready for the BAO, and was looking at the task of creating a FAQ document. Given the timing, we had just gotten a draft together. I thought it made sense to have Reece come on board, review the current document, see if it was something he could work with for his event, provide feedback, work with us with the final question selection and complete the document. It takes a tremendous amount of work to generate these documents and unless you have skin in the game, or an event deadline approaching it is tough to get up for the task at hand. So Reece by my judgment was in a unique position to contribute and help.

It had been said from day 1. That Wargamescon, and now by extension FoB and BAO could do whatever they wanted with the final FAQ document, make changes as needed for their events etc. The likelihood is the FAQ document used by all of us will be similar because well we all contributed to the process of it’s development ..

Clearly, I did a poor job of communicating how the document was to be presented. So that is on me and my shoulders are wide enough here. Anyone that has a beef you can direct it my way.


We will move forward with the AdeptiCon version of this document and post it this week.



-Hank

Unfortunatly Hank this wasnt the way it was presented. The community is aware that both reece and Chandler have been very verbal in there desire to create a comprehensive Tournament FAQ. Personally i dont have an issue with its creation... however when i asked the "group" as a whole... not just Adepticon, why certain TOs were not involved we were given conflicting and very defensive answers.

Hank , you took the opportunity to post your side of the story and i appreciate that. However key players of the group that you appear to know so well have been presenting this in a manner much differently that what it appears you or Matthius intend it to be and i think it would be appropriate for them to answer why they have decided to participate in a creation of a ITfaq without getting other TOs involved. I call it the ITfaq because thats how we were presented it.

Also, your reasoning is sound as to why the inclusion of Chandler and Reece, these reasons continue to further the question as to why wouldnt someone who had to create a comprehensive faq on the heals of the introduction of 6th edition wouldnt be a welcome addition ???

I would imagine that none of this was taken lightly or at a whim. Big events such as BAO dont decide to do a tournament faq last minute so i would think this has been in the works for some time. However, If there was a rush on time... wouldnt it have been prudent to invite someone in who had the experiance in creating a Tournament faq to help expidite it for BAO ?

Whether or not you like it, this faq will be regarded as a replacement for the inat because of the players participating in its creation. So it concerns me that it would appear there were important exclusions here. From the perspective of an east coast player and T.O. i would question as to why the biggest Tournament over here was not involved in something that "will" effect the Tournament player base country wide and for possibly years to come.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

yakface wrote:
You have to talk to Reece about why he titled the post on his site like that.

Since your name is associated with this it would be more appropriate for you to ask him.

I would be curious to find out the answer since this was my initial question at the start of this conversation.

 yakface wrote:


GW just released new FAQs and removed Outflank from Valks/Vendettas, so we can cross one contentious issue off the list at least!

Beat me too it

I definitely second the question about whether reserving a PCS in a Vendetta forces you to reserve the entire platoon.

Additionally, this is a question I have seen argued too many times:

If you place a blast marker targeting the unit on top of a bastion (i.e., on the battlements), does the blast hit the bastion or is the bastion protected by the battlements? All the poor wording in the BRB FAQ has left it ambiguous whether the battlements include the floor the unit is standing on apparently, and since everyone and their uncle seems to have a Bastion, clarity either way would be most appreciated.

Breng77 wrote:
So to me it sounds like poor execution of the wording/intent upon release. As the frontline gaming site essentially sells it as the one FAQ for all and to be in common use

That sounds familiar:

Ash nazg durbatulûk, ash nazg gimbatul, ash nazg thrakatulûk, agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.

And just who is this mad, power hungry, "Reece" guy anyway? Prolly someone who shouldn't be in charge. I mean, we did learn from the Necromancer of Mirkwood / Sauron, right?

Plus, that troll "yakface" is just bringing this thread down with flaming and ad hoc attacks. What a tool. I'm going to report him to the MODs. Maybe he'll get his posting privileges revoked.




- - -

Threads like this can always use a little jocularity. Enjoy the long weekend, guys!

I was still wondering why the core rule that allows all Heavy Support choices and Fast Attack deny in Big Gunz and Scouring missions.

I would like to hear from someone involved in the process (Yakface, Darkwynn, Reece) and not someone who thinks they know why it was changed. This is a core rule from the BRB. If you want to argue intent, than GW would now have 4 chances to change it in an FAQ or Errata. it hasn't been done by them so why is it done by you guys?

You know this changes the dynamic of those missions and makes those missions confusing to those players who actually play by the BRB book missions. Reece, I thought the goal of the BAO was to keep the book missions intact because they make sense, aren't written ambiguously, and you've said over and over how you like the book missions? For the longest time Reece you have been advocating using combined book missions in the BAO for simplicity's sake and advocating that you like the missions. It seems changing this rule goes against everything you have said. Not a personal attack, but it is a fact. I listen to your Podcasts and read things you post. This is not only changing a core rule from the BRB but a core belief that you have said repeatedly online and I am sure in person.

I know this isn't a BAO FAQ, but in a way it is. This was rushed to get your tournament an FAQ. If it was rushed and not complete, is it fair to everyone to have an unfinished copy that will change? With it changing from event to event, it will turn into a specific tournament FAQ rather than a unified FAQ that is being proposed. If this is going to be the document that is seen at other major events, than explaining why changing core rules from the BRB needs to be explained.

Changing these missions makes no sense, so please explain why the 5 of you guys changed it. Someone that was/is involved in the process please explain for me please.

Holy smokes! Haha, this got a tad out of hand, huh?

I am going to write this one post only, as I just don't have the energy to jump into this morass as folks seem to be a bit heated.

I understand why folks are getting heated though, we all care a lot about this silly game, so I am not trying to put anyone down for being passionate on this topic.

I can't answer all of the questions, I will just state my (and Frontline's) points on this and hopefully clear some things up. I will only speak from my own point of view, my intentions and thought process. I can't and won't speak for anyone else.

This FAQ council got started without me involved. I stated that as the INAT wasn't updated, we would need an Indy Tournament FAQ to fill the void. I started writing one and openly stated as much to the community publicly, reaching out for community support. My goal was to have a FAQ everyone on the West Coast (or anywhere) could use as I know most of the active TO's out here and of those I had a chance to speak with, we were all on the same page.

I was then approached to be a part of the FAQ council already being formed, and it just made sense to join up with an existing effort to save time and have some form of standardization between events, which I openly advocate for. If I have any "agenda" in this, it is to see more standardization between Indy tournaments for a million reasons I won't go into here. That is just Frontline's and my own opinion, everyone else speaks for their own event.

I also respected the opinions of the fellas on the council and knew they had experience with this type of effort in the past.

I think that the desire on my part to see more standardization between events influenced the way I presented the document. We did push it fast to get it done in time for the BAO (which I really appreciate, I was getting bombarded with rules questions and it was such a time drain answering them all individually). I was feeling a lot of pressure to get a FAQ out there.

So, I was the first one to post the document as the BAO was first, which means we got a lot of the attention. I thought of the FAQ as an Indy GT FAQ, so I presented it that way. I didn't run that by anyone else on the council or anything, it just seemed like the proper way to present it to me. Also, I wanted to show some solidarity to the community as I knew I would get a lot of flak as any FAQ is going to be controversial. Strength in numbers and all that.

If I accidentally cast a certain light on the document that wasn't intended, that is 100% my responsibility. If anyone is mad, be mad at me for unintentionally making it sound like something it wasn't. There was no weird, shady stuff gong on or some effort to impose our will on the community. We just got together to write a document we all had a common need for, that's all.

As for individual rulings that go against my stated philosophy on 40K? I am willing to accept a FAQ with rulings I don't agree with in order to have a FAQ that we can all agree on. For me, solidarity and a functioning rule set supersede any personal bias I may have. I also have the greatest respect for the process the council used in determining their rulings and feel confident that the logic was sound, and the intentions ethical.

So that's it in a nut shell. Honestly, no reason to get mad here, no reason to see conspiracies where there are none, etc. Basically, a group of active TOs got together to meet a need in the community, and took a LOT of their own time to do so. If anyone chooses to use or not use this document in their own event, that is their call. We will be using it for all of our events, though. I will change the title of it if that helps clear up confusion, I have no issue with that at all.

Yes, the document will change, but that is inevitable. As GW releases new books, FAQs, etc, we will have to alter the document. That is just the nature of the beast. And we need SOMETHING, if we wait for perfection we'll be waiting a very, very long time.

I will not be responding further in this thread, that isn't an insult or me not wanting to engage the community. We just have too much to do in preparation for the BAO, which is only 2 weeks away, and these debates can become a real time drain. See you all at the BAO!

 Reecius wrote:

Basically, a group of active TOs got together to meet a need in the community, and took a LOT of their own time to do so.

so the intent "is" to create a unified Tournament FAQ, necessitated by the Void of an INAT FAQed 6th edition, by a council of hand picked TO's


- Hank , i dont think your post made it clear enough even to your own people. how do you expect the rest of us to recieve this ?

Reece by his own admission envisions this as a way of using the influence of 4 big tournaments into leveraging this Independant Tournament FAQ as the standard. Its not the standard i question... its the means by which it was created.

The problem with that statement is...the TOs did not get together to meet the needs of the community or replace the INAT, they got together to meet the needs of their events in the absence of the INAT - with people who would be acting as judges at mainly AdeptiCon initially. In my opinion that is where it should have stayed, and there should not have been an event invloved in these discussion that occured prior to AdpetiCon, but that is neither here nor there.

Our intent was to produce an FAQ for AdeptiCon, and like every set of rules, every mission and previous FAQ endevors - this would be placed in the public arena for anyone to use or build off of if they so desired. Each event would generate a series of questions that would be added to event-specific documents as needed, but the goal was to harvest questions from each other...not answers. Not to say there is anything wrong with boucing ideas off other people...in fact I think that is essential...there was just no desire on our part to make any event out there play by the AdeptiCon FAQ or a universal Indy GT FAQ.

It might have been Reece's intention to produce a standardized FAQ, but he was either misinformed or misunderstood where at least AdeptiCon stood in this process.

We have never been in the business of pushing our format, our FAQs or our missions.

I think that this has gotten way out of hand. There are people attributing actions on behalf of these TOs which simply aren't in their personalities.

While I disagree with several of the rulings that these TOs make it is just a first draft.

Let me say this, and I rarely make statements like this since this is the Internet and people never believe these sorts of statements, but I personally know Reece and Jon. They would never be party to some sort of conspiracy to side step other members of the GT TO community or be party to trying to make an FAQ that deliberately changes 40k. I have also met Darkwynn at WargamesCon and had discussions with him and I don't get the feeling that he is about to partake in that sort of behavior either.

I do feel that the ruling about the scouring and big guns is wrong and changes the fundamental way the 6th Ed missions are designed. I also have faith that Reece, Yakface, Nick etc. will sit down and listen to the responses of thie or tournament attendees and ultimately change that. Or not, and I will play at the BAO anyway.

I know that I have now opened myself up to the old who i know in "real life" attacks, but the point remains the same. These guys are not out to get anyone, I would stake my real life reputation on it. I won't stake my Internet reputation because as we all know that isn't worth a whole lot.

I don't personally think it is a conspiracy. What I do attribute to at least Reece is that he wants a unified FAQ (he said so himself) and he is using this as a vehicle to move in that direction. Which I feel is not the correct way to go about doing something so large scale. That said if it is mostly west coast many of those events would probably use a bao FAQ anyway, just as many east coast events used the nova FAQ. I feel a bettEr way tO have handled this would have been tO release just tHe bao FAQ as a "first draft" of what is eventually intended to be a universal FAQ. Then use that as a jumping off point to involve other major gt tos (if they desire to be involved). The more events that are involved and on board the more readily people will accept a major document.

Ed

This is coming from a former INAT team member and one who is not involved on the current initiative.

zedsdead wrote:
So i ask a question and get some sort of "song and dance" answer that doesn't address my original question of whether or not NOVA was asked to participate.

Here's a little history lesson. The INAT existed before NOVA was even on the radar. NOVA was started and grew through hard work and dedication. In recognition to this influence, Mike was brought on to the team. Same with other events and their organizers. Since you want to focus on NOVA's involvement though, I can say from personal experience that Mike's participation was aloof at best on 50% of the calls he chose to participate in. This is not an attack on him. It is as it was. So why would they want that type involvement on this project? It's not even worth their time. Mike has his own priorities.

I have yet to hear you ask the question, did NOVA ask other community players of "influence" to participate in the NOVA FAQ docs? The answer is - NO. Yet, you didn't see a big uproar online about it even though it has the potential to "influence the community" and how the game is played.

If you are willing to critique the work of another group, you need to be able and willing to hold the other groups you show favor to the same standard.

zedsdead wrote:
if you cant handle answering some pretty basic stuff without attacking me, i might suggest you remove yourself from the discussion.

Others like you relentlessly attacked the INAT in similar fashion. Yet, even when the council adapted to account for these so called "issues", the attacks still came. It simply comes down to two issues:

1. You personally don't like the rulings because it "changes" "your" brand of 40K.
2. You don't like the fact that you or people you think should, do not have influence on it's creation.

For item #1 - No one is going to agree on 100% of the rules. Same thing I hear all the time from people in critique and yet they offer no other solution. So present your case, move on and get over it.
For item #2 - If you can't handle the fact that this initiative was done without input from those you deem "important", then I suggest (as you did earlier to others) you remove yourself from this discussion. Not everyone gets to play in the sand box.

Basically this got presented poorly. If it's not a universal FAQ then I don't see any issues (though I do take umbrage at the tone of some of the posters on both sides). If there is a plan to eventually use a universal FAQ and this is the planning stages then members of the East Coast TO community should be involved.

I can see the frustration from Zed's perspective. He asked a relatively simple question and didn't get a solid answer. No only did he not get a solid answer he got several conflicting answers.

Either way we'll just see where this goes.

@Inquisitor_Malice

To be fair Mike never touted the Nova FAQ as an attempt at a universal FAQ like Reece did with this FAQ. If he had you would have heard an arguably lounder uproar from Nova detractors.

And like I said, if this initiatives goal is a a universal template for GT use across the country then the people who run large, successful, multi-year events should be involved. Be they Mike, Jay, or Mikhaila (example, I doubt he's interested) they are important to the community and inclusion would increase acceptance.

Saying things like not everyone gets to play in the same sandbox sounds elitist and a douchee (sp?). It also seems dismissive and could lead people to the wrong conclusions which isn't something that should be encouraged in this conversation.