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.

Hulk i agree whole heartedly with everything you said above.

Malice, people decided to adopt mikes Nova FAQ as a type of universal one on the east coast, he didnt brand it as such like this one currently being advertised as.

Unfortunately my only issue is the changing of rules from the rulebook, so there is at least 3 reasons not to like it instead of just the 2 you pointed out.

on a positive note BAO is only 2 weeks away so everyone just get up and get ready

 Hulksmash wrote:
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.

I don't know exactly what form of conflicting answers you're referring to. There has been a pretty consistent answer (the truth) given from the very beginning. This was never intended to be a universal FAQ, but rather a FAQ for the events involved in putting it together. I've been repeating that message (again, the truth), from my very first post responding to the issue in this thread.

 Hulksmash wrote:
@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.

I have to agree with Hulk here, Inquisitor_Malice. You know I understand where you're coming from, but pointing fingers at people never solves anything at all.

And getting back to the idea about universal FAQ Hulk: The thing you have to understand is, the more people you have involved in the creation of anything, the more difficult it becomes logistically to get things done. For example, just to create this tiny little FAQ that we've presented has taken over a month of once a week conference calls at 3+ hours on each call. Even with only 6-7 people on the calls there are still some who can't make it every week. If you tried to go with the ideal of inviting the T.O. from every tournament with more than 100 regular attendees (for example), the logistics of getting everyone on to even discuss the issues would be an absolute nightmare.

Some people have suggested doing it via forum or some other written method, but again I can tell from experience that a conversation about rules that can take 5-10 minutes on a conference call can end up taking days or weeks to resolve when its done through forum or email chain...its just not a good way to ensure that everyone is hearing all the pertinent information (because you never know if someone reading has skipped over a line or missed a certain post/email or just didn't comprehend what was written in a particular area).

While the idea of a universal tournament FAQ is an intoxicating one, I think the INAT is as close as we'll likely see to that ever happening again, because of how difficult the logistics are to try to pull something like that together and keep it running.

 Hulksmash wrote:

@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.

Brad - Not everyone get's to have a say in all decisions. It's not elitist, it's simple fact. If you can seriously tell me that the "everyone" gets a say, then you are lying to yourself. Ed may organize the BFS, which is maybe pushing up to 80 people. Multiple events at AdeptiCon alone just might hit that level of attendance. Yet, there are several of those event organizers who are not involved. Are they complaining - No. I completely understand what they are doing and support them 100%. Yet, I don't get to play in the sand box.

Beyond this current initiative, the INAT offered the opportunity you speak of and was adapting to the community concerns. Ed's BFS has run for 2 years under which the INAT could have been used. NOVA could have used it in 2011 as well. However, I know for sure that NOVA and a few other events chose not to use it because they had a different view or in my opinion "knew better". The diehards in support of those events chose that path and now reap what was sewn. That is simple truth.

In the end, some of the team members may have that universal template as an ultimate goal. But that is a personal choice per individual. Not all of them have the goal.

My only problem is with the blatant changes to the way Big Guns Never Tire and The Scouring are played. Simply put, there is absolutely no good reason for it.

Can we please get an answer from someone involved as to why you've decided to completely change the dynamics of those two missions?

If five guys whom are heavily involved in the community want to get together and come to some agreement on answers to frequently asked questions concerning the game we play.. That's fine, and I welcome and very much appreciate that effort. And that seems to depict what a majority of this document attempts to convey.

However, five guys getting together, using their collective influential weight in the community to fundamentally change the way the game is played.. That's just something I can't get behind.

The crux of the argument is this: when so many people get together with such an enourmous influence on the community and the game we play, and decide to straight up change the rules, a majority of people will start playing that way.. and I don't want to be pushed into playing a game, that is fundamentally different from the one I've come to know and enjoy, by a third party.

This isn't Blood Bowl. And I dont want it to become that. Just keep that in mind. You're walking down a slippery slope when you start changing rules.

Cheers,
Ken

SCP Yeeman wrote:
Unfortunately my only issue is the changing of rules from the rulebook, so there is at least 3 reasons not to like it instead of just the 2 you pointed out.

Actually - that is still Item #1 "You personally don't like the rulings because.....".

1. these are not GW approved
2. these are not how my group plays
3. these are not how I interpret them
4. "these change the rules from the rulebook."

All of these are "brands" of 40K. So, still part of item #1. Still only 2. Please - been through these types of arguments through the years so many times it's not even funny.

@YAK - yeah, I understand. Some kids need a little scolding to from time to time.

Well - I've reached my 2 post + 1 bonus limit that I set myself for discussions. Catch ya' later. Any body else want to have a discussion on this - just PM me.

INAT was formed out of a need when GW has very limited FAQs which were never updated. There were literally hundreds of issues needing real clarification.

gW FAQs have actually gotten increasingly better than they used to be. Multiple rounds of updates, very indepth. The FaQs of today catch about 90% of the issues where before they were barley catching 10%.

I don't think a universal community FAQ is needed anymore. The issues needing to be sorted out are smaller in number than before, and Gw will probably not address them out of their attitude that gamers are "reasonable" and can deal with the issues.

Of course for tourneys, this is not the case. But the shortness of this FAQ shows simply how few issues actually need to be resolved and it is up to TOs to choose their own decisions. If they want to collaborate, so be it.if they don't, more power to them. As long as the event FAQ is documented and clear for the people attending.

If you are incapable of playing in an event with rulings you don't agree with, then you may never be able to attend any tourney ever.

Well this thread is crazy.

All I'll poke in with is, it's well-known fact among INAT council members and others that I was a big supporter of the INAT, but couldn't use it for the NOVA due to length - we print a copy of the NOVA FAQ into everyone's guidebooks as a courtesy. I've shared this with people like Yak, who needed to know I wasn't trying to be discourteous in not using it.

I still participated in several INAT council meetings proudly, b/c it was such an important and useful document to most events. So, it's a little odd to see someone suggest aloofness or "know better"-ness when I broadly and often shared that opinion (to the point that people like Matthias and Yak in this thread have stated as much and knew it). Hell, in my younger days I was as much a detractor as any, and was very appreciative when I was invited on after cooling the jets, growing up, and putting so much time and energy into making the NOVA a nice thing for the community.

As a fan of a community-driven FAQ idea to give people some consistency, a smaller and more printable one isn't a bad thing in my book. I'd support and involve myself if ever one was put together. But the drama here probably isn't warranted, since the creators have no intent for this to be a community-wide FAQ. They just want to use it for their own events, and even want to change it up from event to event as each individual sees fit.

Final aside - the NOVA FAQ's preamble explicitly states it is NOT designed to be used by the community. So whoever said that, that's ... really not the point. When people ask me about using it at their events, I hand them the docs and version control to do with as they see fit, and to use it as a baseline. I.E., BFS used NOVA FAQ, but changed rulings they disagreed w/ to make it a de facto BFS FAQ. Didn't bother me any. Frankly, I used INAT as a baseline for the NOVA FAQ, addressing the questions most pressing, and keeping the page count low enough to print for attendees (as mentioned above).

Also, I want to shout out to Reece, who sent me a lovely e-mail making sure all was cool w/ me due to pointlessly negative things said or implied about me or NOVA in this thread, and reaffirming the friendship we've started to build running into each other at events and chatting about running them. It was also nice seeing the couple things Mr. Weeks had to say. Class acts, whose words were unnecessary and much appreciated.

One thing to say, as someone whose own event had some pretty big impacts and reactions from the community when it was first aired, give TO's a bit of a break. We all learn to moderate our approach in time, and most of us are pretty gregarious, upbeat, Type A people. Sometimes we say things wrong, or not as we really intend, but we all put in thousands of hours a year to put on big events for you guys to have fun at. Hell, we just finished formalizing the NOVA Open Charitable Foundation so we can legally and properly focus the point of the NOVA on raising money for good causes instead of JUST having a fun time. In many ways, we're following in the footsteps of events like AdeptiCon that have done such things for years. Give us a break ... we're imperfect, but we're the closest things to public servants the community has ... speaking for myself, and most of the TO's I've spoken to (including the guys in this thread), none of us are doing it for ourselves. We really are trying to improve things for ya'll ... FAQs and all.

Spoken a bit from the heart here. Crossing my fingers it won't be too badly torn up :p

 hippesthippo wrote:
My only problem is with the blatant changes to the way Big Guns Never Tire and The Scouring are played. Simply put, there is absolutely no good reason for it.

Can we please get an answer from someone involved as to why you've decided to completely change the dynamics of those two missions?

If five guys whom are heavily involved in the community want to get together and come to some agreement on answers to frequently asked questions concerning the game we play.. That's fine, and I welcome and very much appreciate that effort. And that seems to depict what a majority of this document attempts to convey.

However, five guys getting together, using their collective influential weight in the community to fundamentally change the way the game is played.. That's just something I can't get behind.

The crux of the argument is this: when so many people get together with such an enourmous influence on the community and the game we play, and decide to straight up change the rules, a majority of people will start playing that way.. and I don't want to be pushed into playing a game, that is fundamentally different from the one I've come to know and enjoy, by a third party.

This isn't Blood Bowl. And I dont want it to become that. Just keep that in mind. You're walking down a slippery slope when you start changing rules.

Cheers,
Ken

First off, as has already been said: This is a first draft. Things may still change, so please don't fly off the handle just yet.


Second: I wasn't around for the discussion on those points, so I can't give you any specifics, but if I had to guess it would be because of the belief that it seems perhaps like a simple error on GW's part not realizing that making a unit scoring doesn't also make them denial units and that there is a high likelihood that if they were to FAQ the issue they would rule the same way as it is in the document. But again, that is just my guess and more importantly again, I would say these rulings will be looked at the closest because of the amount of feedback that has been generated towards them.


Third: You know who has a LOT of power over how you play at a tournament? The judge you call over to resolve your disputes. Its like that guy gets to say exactly how you should play whether you like it or not. A tournament FAQ is not a FAQ produced by Games Workshop. It simply represents how the tournament organizers and judges will be ruling should an issue arise. Even if this ruling ends up standing as-is, nobody is walking around forcing you to play that way if the two players agree to play it the way they feel is correct.

So again, this is not a small group of guys getting together trying to force you to play a certain way, but rather: if you are coming to one of these events you can now have the knowledge ahead of time how the judges will rule should a dispute arise at the table and they be called over.

 hippesthippo wrote:
My only problem is with the blatant changes to the way Big Guns Never Tire and The Scouring are played. Simply put, there is absolutely no good reason for it.

Can we please get an answer from someone involved as to why you've decided to completely change the dynamics of those two missions?

I didn't write it, but three good reasons to change it:

1) It avoids absurd situations like both players scoring the same objective simultaneously (for example, if both of them have heavy support vehicles on it). Depending on how you're handling mission results for win/loss records this could be something you really want to avoid.

2) It makes the game play like people expect it to play. It's badly counter intuitive that a scoring unit is somehow not a denial unit. For example, if you have a Basilisk claiming an objective and your opponent counters with a tactical squad you'd expect that the objective is contested and held by neither player, not that your opponent gets uncontested control over it.

3) It's probably how GW meant for it to work. Obviously the game can't be perfect without re-writing the rules, but this is a case where the sensible and intuitive way of doing things is probably how it was supposed to work, and it's fairly likely that there will eventually be an FAQ/errata update to make it work that way.

Silly gamers...

Look - if Mike, Ed, Chandler and Reece wanted to get together and produce a unified FAQ for their events, I would fully support that effort. While I wouldn't initially support its use at AdeptiCon, I would support using it as a document to mine for questions and points of view on certain difficult subjects...exactly what I currently support doing with the NOVA FAQ or any other existing document that has the weight of experience and time behind it. AdeptiCon wouldn't need to be involved in or influence that process in order to gain from it - and who knows, over time the FAQs might just start to strangely resemble one another...

I wouldn't support its use at AdeptiCon any more than the BfS would have used the INAT during 5th edition (and let's be honest - INAT was primarily produced for and with the assitence of AdeptiCon). The funny part being, BfS benefited from all that INAT work without ever being involved seeing that the NOVA FAQ had some roots therein.

But I suppose that is just the difference in our approaches and view. The point being - this isn't a democracy, this isn't a consensus, this isn't even an organized Wednesday night bowling league...this is a hobby, for all of us...players and TOs alike. If we incite division, or set against one another - no one gains anything. I have always been a proponent of more, well-run events...a rising tide and all that.

Way before the trainwreck in this thread, a number of the same events, including the NOVA and Da Boyz, looked at starting a unified group of tournament organizers to help further the promotion of events and event organization. Some people wanted unified FAQs and ranking systems, but I personally opposed such actions, as I thought any such organization would be far more influencial if we just made ourselves available to share our experience and knowledge when it came to things of a more logistical nature (hotel contracts, sponsors, web presence, marketing, document production, staffing, terrain, etc), cross-promoted other events through attendance incentive programs and just helping to spread the news about other awesome events. Silly gamer indeed.

I would say these rulings will be looked at the closest because of the amount of feedback that has been generated towards them.

At this point, I think you understand why I've bothered posting. (HINT: It wasn't to generate hatred towards any involved parties). I'll leave it at that.

@Peregrine: As has been stated previously in this thread, GW has had multiple opportunities to fix it if it were indeed a mistake. Also, I was specifically interested in hearing the reasoning behind those making the decisions. I can make educated guesses with the best of them.

There is nothing to indicate that GW wanted them to be denial units. In fact, everything written in the BRB would suggest otherwise. Just because YOU believe something to be common sense, doesn't mean that it is.

 Matthias wrote:
I thought any such organization would be far more influencial if we just made ourselves available to share our experience and knowledge when it came to things of a more logistical nature (hotel contracts, sponsors, web presence, marketing, document production, staffing, terrain, etc), cross-promoted other events through attendance incentive programs and just helped to spread the news about other awesome events.

We should talk about this again, too! I remember that call. I was in a hotel somewhere on business, making time to participate.

 hippesthippo wrote:
@Peregrine: As has been stated previously in this thread, GW has had multiple opportunities to fix it if it were indeed a mistake.

That would be a good argument if GW didn't have a long history of failing to fix things until several FAQs after everyone else had figured out that it was a problem. Meanwhile they haven't given an FAQ answer saying "they are scoring but not denial units", they've just been completely silent on the issue and failed to show any apparent recognition that people think an issue exists. Their silence isn't proof that things are working as intended, it just means that they're lazy about getting FAQ answers published.

@Peregrine: That is because up until now there hasn't been any confusion.. It is written very clearly and I have never ONCE heard, or read, an argument against it prior to this thread.

In order to be a "frequently asked question," people must ask it.. Frequently. I'm afraid that's not the case here.

 hippesthippo wrote:

I would say these rulings will be looked at the closest because of the amount of feedback that has been generated towards them.

At this point, I think you understand why I've bothered posting. (HINT: It wasn't to generate hatred towards any involved parties). I'll leave it at that.

@Peregrine: As has been stated previously in this thread, GW has had multiple opportunities to fix it if it were indeed a mistake. Also, I was specifically interested in hearing the reasoning behind those making the decisions. I can make educated guesses with the best of them.

There is nothing to indicate that GW wanted them to be denial units. In fact, everything written in the BRB would suggest otherwise. Just because YOU believe something to be common sense, doesn't mean that it is.

Posting to say: 'I don't agree with this ruling because...' is great, and what is needed.

Its the second part about: 'A few guys getting together to change the game' canned line that's not constructive and does not serve any purpose except to perpetrate the false myth about what a tournament FAQ is actually for and the motivation behind having one in the first place.

So yes, feedback about the document's rulings based on your personal opinion, questions that have been missed, etc, are all great examples of useful stuff that I would love to see more of.

 Hulksmash wrote:
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.

I fail to see how it can be taken that way if Inq. Malice isn't even playing the 'sandbox'. He is just as much an outsider at this point as you are. His point is...you simply cannot involve everyone. No matter who is included, there will be a Zed wondering why so-and-so was left out.

To that point, even in a unified community FAQ there is plenty of room for varying levels of involvement. Not everyone needs to be at the table from the start, not everyone needs to have equal input, and to be simply honest - there are people that just shouldn't be involved for a number of reasons. A unified approach would have to have organic elements, as it would need to grow and adapt as it was more widely accepted.

I agree that FAQ silence from GW has never historically been a confirmation of RAW or ambiguous rules.

GW simply misses or ignores things which they think are already "clear enough". The fact they are even bothering to do any FAQs past 1.1 is a good thing and has shown that silent items do eventually get FAQed in wacky ways and sometimes rule changes.

 yakface wrote:

 hippesthippo wrote:

I would say these rulings will be looked at the closest because of the amount of feedback that has been generated towards them.

At this point, I think you understand why I've bothered posting. (HINT: It wasn't to generate hatred towards any involved parties). I'll leave it at that.

@Peregrine: As has been stated previously in this thread, GW has had multiple opportunities to fix it if it were indeed a mistake. Also, I was specifically interested in hearing the reasoning behind those making the decisions. I can make educated guesses with the best of them.

There is nothing to indicate that GW wanted them to be denial units. In fact, everything written in the BRB would suggest otherwise. Just because YOU believe something to be common sense, doesn't mean that it is.

Posting to say: 'I don't agree with this ruling because...' is great, and what is needed.


Its the second part about: 'A few guys getting together to change the game' canned line that's not constructive and does not serve any purpose except to perpetrate the false myth about what a tournament FAQ is actually for and the motivation behind having one in the first place.

So yes, feedback about the document's rulings based on your personal opinion, questions that have been missed, etc, are all great examples of useful stuff that I would love to see more of.

Fair enough. Sometimes you just wanna make sure people hear you when your voice is effectively minimised to nothing. As has been said, "this is not a democracy," etc., etc.

 hippesthippo wrote:

Fair enough. Sometimes you just wanna make sure people hear you when your voice is effectively minimised to nothing. "This is not a democracy," etc., etc.

And I get that, I really do.

But ultimately what it comes down to is this:

Would you rather attend a tournament having no idea how a judge will rule a certain situation and then, in the heat of the moment when the game is on the line and the judge is called over, you having no idea whether his ruling will effectively cost you the game or not?

Or would you instead prefer to know ahead of time how a judge will rule the situation so you can go in with your eyes open and either discuss the situation with your opponent before the game and decide together to play against the tournament ruling or at worst know ahead of time that it is going to be played not the 'right' way (in your eyes) so you can adjust your play to compensate?


I know some people prefer the former because they are dead set that their opinion on how the rules should be played is simply the 'right' way, but most people seem to appreciate the latter, even if it means they end up playing against what they think is 'right'.

 hippesthippo wrote:
Fair enough. Sometimes you just wanna make sure people hear you when your voice is effectively minimised to nothing. As has been said, "this is not a democracy," etc., etc.

Out of context.

My point was that the creation of an FAQ document was a disorganized mess, with no set structure or set of rules by which to govern the creation of such. The voice of attendees and the community has always been what has driven these documents. The questions come from people like you. The discussions on YMDC and post-INAT releases came from people like you. My comments were directed at those distilling the myriad of voices and opinions into something useable at their particular event.

Inquisitor_Malice wrote:

Brad - Not everyone get's to have a say in all decisions. It's not elitist, it's simple fact. If you can seriously tell me that the "everyone" gets a say, then you are lying to yourself. Ed may organize the BFS, which is maybe pushing up to 80 people. Multiple events at AdeptiCon alone just might hit that level of attendance. Yet, there are several of those event organizers who are not involved. Are they complaining - No. I completely understand what they are doing and support them 100%. Yet, I don't get to play in the sand box.

Beyond this current initiative, the INAT offered the opportunity you speak of and was adapting to the community concerns. Ed's BFS has run for 2 years under which the INAT could have been used. NOVA could have used it in 2011 as well. However, I know for sure that NOVA and a few other events chose not to use it because they had a different view or in my opinion "knew better". The diehards in support of those events chose that path and now reap what was sewn. That is simple truth.

In the end, some of the team members may have that universal template as an ultimate goal. But that is a personal choice per individual. Not all of them have the goal.

Inquisitor_Malice wrote:

@YAK - yeah, I understand. Some kids need a little scolding to from time to time.

Wow Greg impressive job with the arrogance. I guess we should all sit down now and STFU while the big boyz make the decisions ?
How dare i ask the "chosen few " why other event organizers werent involved and what there intentions were, right ?

Reaping what we sow ??? so if Tournaments dont use the INAT we get what we deserve ? what might that be Greg ? im assuming by this comment that you have some inside info here ? were participants of the ITfaq based on those who openly used it ?

Yea i run the BFS which actually is in its 4th year, and never publicly claimed to either like or dislike the INAT faq. In 2012 we used a version of the NOVA FAQ due to necessity. There was no INAT to go on. In 2011 we used neither the NOVA or INAT and wrote our own. In 2010 we went off of GW faqs and also fell back on the INAT if needed. Not sure where you got your info that i didnt like the INAT... i might want to check my facts first.


Greg i hope your not involved in this... because the condecending tone scares the hell out of me.

I guess i will go join "everyone else" in our proper corners

 yakface wrote:
But ultimately what it comes down to is this:

Would you rather attend a tournament having no idea how a judge will rule a certain situation and then, in the heat of the moment when the game is on the line and the judge is called over, you having no idea whether his ruling will effectively cost you the game or not?

Or would you instead prefer to know ahead of time how a judge will rule the situation so you can go in with your eyes open and either discuss the situation with your opponent before the game and decide together to play against the tournament ruling or at worst know ahead of time that it is going to be played not the 'right' way (in your eyes) so you can adjust your play to compensate?


I know some people prefer the former because they are dead set that their opinion on how the rules should be played is simply the 'right' way, but most people seem to appreciate the latter, even if it means they end up playing against what they think is 'right'.

This x 1000. It cannot be expressed how important something of this nature is for an event like AdeptiCon. It is completely reasonable to assume local events would not require such forewarning, as most players are already accustomed to the regional play style - but for events that draw from multiple states, or even multiple countries you need something like this simply from a customer service stance. If you are not transparent about such things, then accusations of local favoritism and blindsided traveling players have a legitimate base.

Additionally, we have 10-12 large 40K events all weekend long and it is incredibly important to support consistency across all events. An FAQ is a means to that end.

Traveling 2000 miles to an event only to find out that Chicago plays The Scouring and Big Guns differently would be cause for outrage...and even greater outrage when you play the following day in another event and the judge in that event rules the exact opposite on the same rules question.

Standardizing those answers amongst your staff would be considered important...yes? So why not publish those answers to the public prior to the start of the event?

 yakface wrote:

 hippesthippo wrote:

Fair enough. Sometimes you just wanna make sure people hear you when your voice is effectively minimised to nothing. "This is not a democracy," etc., etc.

And I get that, I really do.

But ultimately what it comes down to is this:

Would you rather attend a tournament having no idea how a judge will rule a certain situation and then, in the heat of the moment when the game is on the line and the judge is called over, you having no idea whether his ruling will effectively cost you the game or not?

Or would you instead prefer to know ahead of time how a judge will rule the situation so you can go in with your eyes open and either discuss the situation with your opponent before the game and decide together to play against the tournament ruling or at worst know ahead of time that it is going to be played not the 'right' way (in your eyes) so you can adjust your play to compensate?


I know some people prefer the former because they are dead set that their opinion on how the rules should be played is simply the 'right' way, but most people seem to appreciate the latter, even if it means they end up playing against what they think is 'right'.

I'd much prefer the latter, obviously. The issue here is whether or not this is a ruling on a faq, as you suggest, or a rules change. Your answers seem to imply they are one and the same. I disagree.

When a rule is ambigous, it requires a judges ruling, and I'd prefer to know the answer ahead of time. When a rule is crystal clear, there is no need for anything.

I don't need to call a judge over to ask if I hit on 2+ with BS5. It's clearly written in the rules. Is anyone arguing that the situation regarding Big Gunz and Scouring is ambigous in so much as the rules as written are concerned? Not to my knowledge.

EDIT: I'd be just fine moving my dragon 5 feet on the last turn to deny your objective. Anyone arguing intent on GW's part can google "fire prism last turn denial."

 Matthias wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
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.

I fail to see how it can be taken that way if Inq. Malice isn't even playing the 'sandbox'. He is just as much an outsider at this point as you are. His point is...you simply cannot involve everyone. No matter who is included, there will be a Zed wondering why so-and-so was left out.

To that point, even in a unified community FAQ there is plenty of room for varying levels of involvement. Not everyone needs to be at the table from the start, not everyone needs to have equal input, and to be simply honest - there are people that just shouldn't be involved for a number of reasons. A unified approach would have to have organic elements, as it would need to grow and adapt as it was more widely accepted.

Actually your wrong Matthius. Inq. Malice actually suggests that if anyone asks a question about the makeup of this commitee we should be aptly swatted on the back sides and put in our places.

In the case of an Adepticon FAQ you would be right in who you choose to involve in its developement and have every right to develop it without my questioning the choices or lack thereof, those choices as to who in involved.

However you seem to constantly be missing the point here. Reecius has been presenting this to the community as a commitee driven Independent Tournament FAQ being created for some big tournaments in 2013 and then to be presented to the community as a baseline for us to choose to work from. That is where i feel we have the right to at least ask.

Having heard from most of you guys there is definitely a difference of opinion you how you intend to use it. Matthius and co at adepticon intention to use it for the sole purposes of Adepticon and a few select tournaments who they are personaly involved with. Which is within there right to do so.

Reecius and possibly others intend it for there Tournament and then a IT unification faq

@Matthias & Inq. Malice

Context matters. People weren't asking why wasn't everyone involved. People were asking why a few East Coast events weren't involved in what was initially presented as a combined effort from some of the larger events.

Honestly the only two TO's who run events of what I considered the minimum not involved at this point were Mike and Jay (or whoever runs Da Boyz).

That's not asking for everyone to get to "play in the sandbox". That's a reasonable question. Dismissing that reasonable question while waving your hand saying "Well not everyone gets a say" does have a negative impact on the discussion.

@Inq. Malice

You seem to be piqued at Nova and BFS because they didn't use the INAT in 5th. In Nova's case pretty much due to the length of the document as has been stated by Jon and Mike. Claiming people are reaping what they sowed is also confrontational.

No one is disputing Adepticon is king of attendance for 40k either.

You worked on the INAT and I have great respect for everyone who put the time into that document. It was an excellent resource for the community and I geniunely appreciate your efforts. I understand you guys caught a ton of flak from people that I felt was undeserved. That said you seem a bit miffed at events that didn't use it.

@Yakface

We've discussed in person how much effort went into the INAT Jon You know I didn't agree with every ruling but that I was cool with the document in general.

I know every person adds time spent per question and that there is a tipping point. But GT's with over 100 GT's aren't actually all that common. Nova, Adepticon, WargamesCon, BOA, Da Boyz, and Feast of Blades pretty much cover the spread. Add in 1-2 advisers such as yourself with experience with the INAT and you're only looking at 7-8 people the drive a lot of the events in the country. That was mostly where I was coming from when it was presented improperly initially (before you started saying it wasn't meant to be a univeral document).

@Thread

I'm a pretty relaxed individual. I know almost all the TO's posting in this thread in person and don't have a single issue with any of you guys. I'll play at any event how that event want's to rule things and have a hell of time doing it because I'm rolling dice. As long as stuff is published ahead of time so I know what I'm getting into I'm cat in milk (I like animals!!!!)

I appreciate all the work all of the TO's in this thread do. A universal FAQ would just be icing on the cake for those of us who travel event to event but I'm sure somehow I'll manage to still have a good time and ensure my opponents do too

@Hulksmash


excellent post and i agree 100%

 hippesthippo wrote:

I'd much prefer the latter, obviously. The issue here is whether or not this is a ruling on a faq, as you suggest, or a rules change. Your answers seem to imply they are one and the same. I disagree.

When a rule is ambigous, it requires a judges ruling, and I'd prefer to know the answer ahead of time. When a rule is crystal clear, there is no need for anything.

I don't need to call a judge over to ask if I hit on 2+ with BS5. It's clearly written in the rules. Is anyone arguing that the situation regarding Big Gunz and Scouring is ambigous in so much as the rules as written are concerned? Not to my knowledge.

Well, the question was submitted by other people, and clearly after discussion by a group of people they came to the conclusion that was printed, so that alone tells you that the situation has some ambiguity to it whether it seems to be the case to you or not.

Basically there are some people out there who would naturally assume and play that because a unit is scoring it would also be a denial unit, as logically that does make sense from a general perspective. Clearly there are enough people that feel this way to have submitted the question in the first place. So the worst possible scenario would be to not have any ruling on the matter and have two people play the game and get to the end both thinking they've won the game only then to find out that they disagree on this ruling, essentially relying on the judge's opinion on the matter to decide the game for them.

So regardless of which way the ruling ends up going, this is a really important one to include whether you happen to think the rules are crystal clear or not.

 Hulksmash wrote:
@Matthias & Inq. Malice

Context matters. People weren't asking why wasn't everyone involved. People were asking why a few East Coast events weren't involved in what was initially presented as a combined effort from some of the larger events.

As I have stated numerous times, this was not the way AdeptiCon supported it being presented. It was never our intention, therefore it is impossible for me to answer your question. I was under the assumption this was made clear to everyone involved - it obvioulsy wasn't, or was simply disregarded. I've made my intentions and stance regarding other events perfectly clear above.

Your beef lies with Reece's intentions and the misinformed perception that all the events involved in these calls wanted what he presented.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Are you guys referring to a group made up of events like this:

http://www.igtcircuit.com/

A group that collectively decided to NOT publish a unified FAQ or have a ranking system...

Yeah!!! New FAQs are out.
Regarding outflankind Vends/Valks...
Scout USR was removed.
So the issue is now irrelevent.

 Matthias wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
@Matthias & Inq. Malice

Context matters. People weren't asking why wasn't everyone involved. People were asking why a few East Coast events weren't involved in what was initially presented as a combined effort from some of the larger events.

As I have stated numerous times, this was not the way AdeptiCon supported it being presented. It was never our intention, therefore it is impossible for me to answer your question. I was under the assumption this was made clear to everyone involved - it obvioulsy wasn't, or was simply disregarded. I've made my intentions and stance regarding other events perfectly clear above.

Your beef lies with Reece's intentions and the misinformed perception that all the events involved in these calls wanted what he presented.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Are you guys referring to a group made up of events like this:

http://www.igtcircuit.com/

A group that collectively decided to NOT publish a unified FAQ or have a ranking system...

I understand that Adepticon doesn't support the way it was initially presented. Again it's context. Inq. Malice was dismissing a relevant question to the original discussion. And like I said in my last post (farther down from where you quoted) I don't have a beef. I don't have a dog in this hunt. I don't run an event and have no intention of doing so. I attend between 4-8 GT's a year locally and nationally. I'm going to have fun regardless of what ruleset is used. I was just pointing out how hand waving dismissal wasn't condusive to open conversation.

Also I don't see where that group states no unitifed FAQ or Ranking system. As I'm not a TO I wouldn't be part of that group But I do know a few TO's on that list like the idea of a unified FAQ so it's easy to think it might be something they are working toward if a member of that group presents an FAQ that way and lists several other events in that group as working on it with him you can easily see the issue.

It doesn't matter, it's a non-issue. It's been cleared up that you guys aren't actually creating a unified FAQ which makes me a little sad. I look foward to the second draft of this (as it's going to be the basis for the Adepticon one) and will continue to provide feeback as I did at the beginning of this thread.