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.

Well, you'll just have to take my word for it. I was present and advocated against such things in the few intitial discussions we had about an event alliance.

The point was, that alliance included the very events people are accusing us of purposely excluding, as if we have a vendetta against said events/coast and think their experience/opnions hold no value. It is nonsesne.

 Hulksmash wrote:

@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).

Hulk,

Honestly, I think the INAT is the closest we will ever come to having anything like a universal Indy tournament FAQ, because of the tremendous logistics involved with pulling it off (that most people don't even think about).

You are right that in theory adding in one or two more people to a conference call doesn't seem like its a big deal, but here's the real issue: The more events the FAQ caters for, the more times a year it needs to be updated. If you plan to make it a truly universal document that every tournament can use (like the INAT was created to be), then that means you have to not just update it in time for 6-7 events each year, but you have to update it every single time GW puts out a new codex and every time they put out a FAQ update.

The codex updates are a challenge because you can't just look through the book and identify all the problems, you actually have to wait a few weeks or a month or so to get people actually playing with it to get some of the real issues fleshed out. GW FAQ updates are also incredibly problematic because if you're trying to create a consistent document, then every time GW makes a ruling you have to see if the precedents set by that ruling affect any of the rulings you made previously in the document.

So yes, having 5-6 guys committed to taking the time to get a shared document ready for 4 events is a hell of a lot easier then getting 7-8 guys together for 6+ events, even though it wouldn't seem like it at face value. If it was like once a year you get together and hash things out, then you'd probably be right, but when you're talking about doing it every few months or so, all of a sudden trying to get 8 people on the phone for 3 hours a week with the myriad of different schedules and timezones involved is actually quite challenging.

I mean honestly, if I wasn't so busy with Dakka and other projects and liked 6th edition a lot more than I do, then my plan was to really go for it and revamp the INAT in a format very similar to what has been presented here, which would have fit the needs for the NOVA and hopefully everyone else.

But such is life...it would be an awesome thing and maybe someone will pick up the slack and make it happen at some point, but from experience it is much harder to pull off then just a 4-event FAQ. It's like a 2nd job almost and while some people may find the idea intoxicating enough to try it, I think the burnout will hit them pretty darn hard after a while. I lasted 5 solid years, but at times it definitely wore me down.

I bow to your personal experience Yak (serisously, no sarcasm as tone can be lost on the internet)

Personally I'm shocked that you lasted as long as you did after you explained to me what you guys went thru for that document. Like I said, it would be nice but I don't actually expect it to happen.

@Matthias

I absolutely accept your word that you guys have no intention of a national ranking system or universal FAQ. I was pointing out that that isn't stated on that group page so even if some people knew it existed (which to be honest I didn't) there is no "manifesto" on the page explaining the groups stance. You comment sounded like it was common knowledge outside of this conversation of that groups stance. I was merely pointing out it wasn't.

I think saying that people were accusing you of intentionally excluding other events is a bit strong. They were asking why, when it was presented that way, that said events weren't.

That's been cleared up so we can all relax and get back to submitting questions for this template FAQ as I've done with a few things for the Adepticon one that have come up as we practice for the missions or just play some crazy games of 6th

I urge TOs from all the excluded major events to form their own council and create a good FAQ that all the other 40k GTs can use.

I suspect that Reece would want to be a part of that.

With GW updating the rules via more frequent updated FAQs than in the past I think 2nd party FAQs aren't needed as much. However, I do see the value of letting players know any event ruling that may differ from GW rules and FAQs.

In this case, making extra units scoring... I'll pass. You'd been better off not amending the rulebook mission and just introducing your own mission at the event with the appropriate mission criteria. Its all in the presentation and delivery.

BTW: Excellent call on Allies of Convenience being scoring if meeting normal scoring requirements.

I agree Byte. Please please don't change the rules.

Wow, it's impressive how many champions The Excluded TO's(tm) have in this thread. What about games workshop themselves??? Were they asked to be part of this FAQ? Did you guys even consider their feelings?

Sarcasm aside, the problems in this thread are easily addressed. Some gentlemen came together to try to answer some questions about how they would run their events and deal with the vagueries of 40k rules in their events. If you disagree with how they handled the rules for their tournaments, don't fret! You have options.
1. Discuss the rulings civilly and provide raw arguments as to why you feel their rulings are wrong in an effort to improve the document.
2. Learn to play in their (in no way GW supported) 40k tournaments and have a good time with the rulings as they see them.
3. Rant about conspiracies and Reece's attempt to co-opt your gaming experience for the communist agenda. (preferably in the rant section of the internet)
4. Do not attend their events and live a peaceful life playing the game as you would like to play with your friends and family and whoever you so choose.

I find it highly admirable that these guys would not only take the time to make an effort to clarify the rules so that people do not get blown out by something unexpected, but that they would also take the time to come into this thread and try to alleviate the incredibly strange amount of conspiracy talk in this thread. Maybe these guys seem like "the man" and they are trying to "make you conform to their playstyle". Maybe you need to calm down and look at this objectively. They have done nothing but try to be civil and try to help people who come to their events have a good time.

Signed - High prelate Dok of the 3rd regime for 40k rules supremacy

Wow, so less than a week after this came out, GW puts out a PSA asking for all/any faq questions to be sent in. It's becoming more and more obvious that there simply isn't a need for a unified indy faq, as presented in this thread, as it will quickly be made obsolete by the manufacturers of our beloved game. Make no mistake, GW's concern for us tournament gamers is genuine, and that's AWESOME.

If GW continues on their current course, all that will be necessary is a tourney by tourney page -not packet- containing answers to the handful of questions that have popped up in the month or so between official FAQs.

Great news fellas! GW is doing the work for us this edition! Save yourself the time and headaches and spend it instead on running more of the wonderful events y'all have been so gracious to run for us.

 hippesthippo wrote:
Wow, so less than a week after this came out, GW puts out a PSA asking for all/any faq questions to be sent in. It's becoming more and more obvious that there simply isn't a need for a unified indy faq, as presented in this thread, as it will quickly be made obsolete by the manufacturers of our beloved game. Make no mistake, GW's concern for us tournament gamers is genuine, and that's AWESOME.

If GW continues on their current course, all that will be necessary is a tourney by tourney page -not packet- containing answers to the handful of questions that have popped up in the month or so between official FAQs.

Great news fellas! GW is doing the work for us this edition! Save yourself the time and headaches and spend it instead on running more of the wonderful events y'all have been so gracious to run for us.

This is the first I've heard of this...do you have a link?

Obviously everyone would love for this to be the case, but GW has had an email address up for a quite a while now asking for question submissions. However the reality is, they just don't have the inclination to answer some questions it seems. Make no mistake they are much, much, much better than they used to be, and I would LOVE for them to get to the point where no tournament FAQs were needed at all, but we aren't anywhere near that point yet.

But anyway, please more info on this press release? Where was it posted/sent to?

From The Shrine of Knowledge;

“Contact Us With Your Questions!

The Games Development team is constantly looking for ways in which we can improve the quality of the material that we provide, and we believe that our Amendments, Errata and FAQ PDFs are an important part of this process. If you have noticed any errors which you believe need fixing, or have encountered any rules for which you require clarifications, we are always grateful for your feedback; please email this to us at Gamefaqs@gwplc.com and we will do our best to answer your questions as quickly and clearly as possible in future updates.”

First wind of it came via certain blogs I don't feel the need to advertise for.

 hippesthippo wrote:
From The Shrine of Knowledge;

“Contact Us With Your Questions!

The Games Development team is constantly looking for ways in which we can improve the quality of the material that we provide, and we believe that our Amendments, Errata and FAQ PDFs are an important part of this process. If you have noticed any errors which you believe need fixing, or have encountered any rules for which you require clarifications, we are always grateful for your feedback; please email this to us at Gamefaqs@gwplc.com and we will do our best to answer your questions as quickly and clearly as possible in future updates.”

I'm pretty sure that's been up for a while...at least I remember they put up an email address asking for questions quite a while ago on that page (not sure if they changed the wording and/or email address itself recently though).




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hey everyone. I started a poll in YMDC to get a gauge on how people are naturally playing the whole Heavy/Fast denial unit issue in Big Guns/Scouring missions, so please no matter what your opinion, please head over and vote:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/508577.page

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I agree Byte. Please please don't change the rules.

I agree with this as well. If you're going to call it a FAQ then simply clarify the rules, but don't outright change them. Even the first iteration of this document is following the flawed design of the INAT FAQ with its haphazard combination of clarifications and rules changes. While I like the idea of a universally recognized tournament FAQ, I would be disinclined to attend events using this.

Danny,

Every event has rules changes - excluding random elements from the game, the continued use of 5th edition Victory Points, the choosing of Warlord Traits, winning VP/KP missions by X number, inclusion of table quarters as an objective, mission special rules....the great thing about the state of the hobby today is folks have choices. As far as AdeptiCon goes, I'll stand by our choices and the atmosphere we seek to promote for our event and support events that choose a different path... because after all, we are part of a common community and ultimately all doing the same thing here...

Hank

muwhe wrote:
Danny,

Every event has rules changes - excluding random elements from the game, the continued use of 5th edition Victory Points, the choosing of Warlord Traits, winning VP/KP missions by X number, inclusion of table quarters as an objective, mission special rules....the great thing about the state of the hobby today is folks have choices. As far as AdeptiCon goes, I'll stand by our choices and the atmosphere we seek to promote for our event and support events that choose a different path... because after all, we are part of a common community and ultimately all doing the same thing here...

Hank

Yes, every event has rules changes, but the best events (in my opinion) attempt to minimize these changes or at least provide good reasons for them. I'm less concerned with changes to victory conditions (virtually everyone agrees that the unmodified 6th edition book missions are unsuitable for competitive play) than I am with changing codex rules. In the past, TOs have attempted to re-balance the game using flawed methods such as comp scoring. Changing the rules themselves seems to be a more recent trend.

Great we are back to:

"There is only one way to 'not change the rules' and any ruling I disagree with is obviously 'changing the rules' and I won't attend!"

This leaves a bunch of butthurt people who only will attend events they run. The only way to have an FAQ everyone will agree to is if GW releases it because people are incapable of 'rolling off' or accepting house FAQs from other events.

"A universal FAQ is great, only if it 100% agrees with only my interpretation" is not how a universal FAQ gets made.

I think my line is:

If the missions are not rulebook missions...I'm fine with (and in fact often prefer) it. SO any changes to missions is fine (i.e. if for your "Big Guns" varient you want heavies to be scoring and denial, that is ok as you could just write a different mission to indicate as much).

If you are changing core rules just as a crazy example changing the charge rules to 6+d6", or preventing maledictions from effecting flyers. I have a problem with it that would keep me from attending.

That said if the missions are divergent enough I also might not attend.

Put simply I have little issue with the presented FAQ as an event FAQ, I have a larger problem when it is touted (by some) as an FAQ for all.(for instance I have no problem with the Big guns change for one event, I have a larger issue with that ruling being universal.)

That said it has already been pointed out by most involved that this is simply for their events (which I am not attending, mostly due to the fact I don't have the money) and thus I have no dog in the fight.

Thank you Nkelsch. You hit the nail on the head.

That is the exactly the reason why we will never have an universally accepted community FAQ. An organization like ISO or CEMA will not be accepted in the 40K community since the mode of entry is easy to obtain and there is no true financial incentive. There will always be a subsect of the population that "knows" best and has the attitude of "play it my way or I'll go home". They will then start their own events, with some succeeding. The fracture in the community will still exist and all we will hear are the complaints from about "no standardization" in tournament play.

For Brad, Ed, Danny, etc. The potential for a standardized community FAQ existed with the INAT. So many of the criticisms against the INAT were founded with no real knowledge of the true inter workings or details. We had to literally shake our heads, roll our eyes and "suck it up" with so many of the untruths that were spilled. Other FAQs can be touted like the NOVA or ETC, but to be honest, the bridges have been burned in the area of a standardized FAQ. Big events like AdeptiCon, WargamesCon, etc do not care about the drivel. We will all accept constructive feedback and make decisions that will provide the best entertainment value for our attendees. If you are included in the attendee base, then great. If not - my philosohpy is - I don't care. Stay home then. I have plenty of other people that are happy come.

Like I said before, you reap what you sow. Funny how history repeats itself again and again.

See it is that exact attitude that will prevent it from ever happening. The idea that well, my group put together a comprehensive FAQ (which was well done, but very unwieldly for acutally use due to its size) and because not everyone jumped on it, that they deserve what they get. I standardized FAQ written by large TOs is probably unlikely because most event organizers are most concerned (as they should be) with the success of their own event.

If at this point I were going to strive for a comprehensive FAQ document what I would probably do is take the major tournament FAQs (and perhaps any other I could find) and filter through them to find the common ground (essentially what the community on whole seems to agree on, at the very least a significant majority of events) and have that document first answer those questions with the agreed answer.

For topics that are contentious stockpile those questions and the various answers and leave it up to the event organizer to pick the one they feel best suits their own event, understanding of the game.

At the moment I think that is about the best that could happen.

@Inquisitor Malice

Greg, you a good dude but you're heavily generalizing what people are saying. And then broadly applying it across the entire conversation.

For the INAT I'm really familiar with the process of how you guys operated and time and effort put into it. I'm pretty sure I've said a few times how much I appreciated that effort for an event the size of Adepticon and as a resource for other events. Outside of the thing being just to damn big (this was before readers became super widely usable) I had zero real issues with the INAT. I might not have agreed on the decisions but that's just natural.

The problem I see that the INAT ran into was that it was developed originally when Adepticon was really the only major non-GW GT event in the US. It wasn't designed during the explosion of the Indy scene and had it's organization and concept down by the time that started to happen. Not to mention that this explosion happened in the middle of an edition. The impression was take the INAT or leave it. I know that people were added to the council from other events as they grew but that information wasn't provided to much of the public and so it still seemed like it was a single group pushing their version of 40k. It might have been incorrect but it was more a result of the circumstances than anything else.

6th would have offered an opportunity to work together as a group of the major events and create something that spanned the influential events in the country. The kernal in the INAT could have grown into something.

That didn't happen. No skin off my back. I attend events to see friends. Out of 7 GT's I attended last year I only won't be returning to a single one and that was due to the way it run. Same thing happened the previous year where I didn't return to one of the five I attended in 2011. It wasn't rules, it was organization and mood.

I think the thread got off on the wrong foot due to the way the FAQ was initially presented. "IF" it was going to be a universal FAQ the comments were reasonable. It's not going to be, that's why most discussion on the universal FAQ has stopped. It's a non-entity now. Just something some of us that travel wouldn't mind

As for rules changes vs. claifications I'd prefer no blantant changes but there will be a few. Because not everyone reads the rules the same way and what may be understandable and clear to some will cause massive debate amongst others. Just look at how poorly the wound mechanic and lookout sir were understood before the FAQ simplified it for everyone. It's good for everyone to be clear on rules and that is the price you pay for it sometimes


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breng makes a good point above mine too.

Greg,

heres my original question thats started this:

zedsdead wrote:
Subject: Re:40K Independent Tournament FAQ

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

Im interested how this council of TOs was determined.

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

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

Where in any of my threads have i trashed the Inat, the people who worked on it or its contents ?
You have generilzed anyone who spoke out on the topic of the original post presentation with now people speaking out about core rules changes ?
I think they have the right to talk about rules as much as how this thing was put together. However neither should be lumped together as some group of "butthurt" individuals with an axe to grind.

I havent posted anymore on this subject due to the fact that "most" of the people involved came out and finally explained what they were doing. There have been explinations and people have taken responsabilty for the misrepresentation of the post. Regardless of whether i agree with there motives or not, Reece,Mathias,hank and yak were gentlemen and came to this thread and responded.

I think it might be a wise choice to remove yourself from the conversation if your going to continue to take pot shots at people asking these guys some questions.

What i get from your posts are:
Speak up and your "butt hurt"
Dont agree and "you get what you deserve"

Breng77 wrote:
See it is that exact attitude that will prevent it from ever happening. The idea that well, my group put together a comprehensive FAQ (which was well done, but very unwieldly for acutally use due to its size) and because not everyone jumped on it, that they deserve what they get.

It wasn't "my group". It was a collection of groups representing a broad area of the population. Just as for instance AdeptiCon is. Our sponsor, volunteer and player base branches wide and far.

Unweildly? - yet criticized just as much for not having enough detail and reasoning. Quite the no win situation.

Size - It was a comprehensive FAQ. Combine all of the GW FAQs, add some decent formatting and see what you get. Everything could be split out of the INAT just as easily if someone took a whole 20 seconds to select "print pages X-Y" for an army. But that was too challenging for some.

Again - misinformation and lack of understanding.

Breng77 wrote:
See it is that exact attitude that will prevent it from ever happening.

Yes - that attitude may prevent it from ever happening. Our feet were held to the fire, which is fine. However, after a while - you see your labors succeed in other areas like the growth of our events. You realize the environment has changed with 6th ed and you don't need this additional headache. With all the previous unjustified vitriol, hate, and drivel spewed, one no longer cares and moves forward with what you know best for the community. So yes - they reap what they sow. Funny, but Yes The Truth Hurts. LOL "oh the irony"

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." - we aren't falling for that trickery again.

@ Greg

Tell like it is why don't you - INAT FAQ was a body of many rules changes with a few clarifications thrown in.

@Inquisitor Malice

So now anyone questioning the INAT (which actually hasn't been done in this thread) is lumped in with YTTH. Interesting approach.

I think I pretty clearly noted why it might have caught as much flakk as it did in my previous post so I'm not gonna rehash that.

You should probably relax a bit Greg. Your feelings were obviously hurt over the issues the INAT faced 2 years+ ago. It's understandable, you put time and effort into it. But lashing out at the community probably isn't the way to deal with it.

@Dozerblades

That's a bit extreme. And many of those "changes" could have been interpretted in the way they were ruled. It's also comments like this that shut down communication and hardens positions.

Brad / Ed - You make good points. However, my point is you want a standardized FAQ (at least Brad seems to indicate this), X number of people should be involved and RAW should always be applied. The same type of arguments permeated about "rules changes" happened exactly as before in the INAT with the same end result of people being disenfranchised about the document. However, it's all opinion and that can't be fixed. Again, it's your opinion. Literally, history repeats itself.

My posts are more from the point of I would love to have seen a standardized FAQ. Prior to my involvement in the INAT - I was burned on numerous occasions with BS rules interpretations both domestically and internationally. I wanted a standardized FAQ just as much as the other highly skilled / competitive players. I didn't have to agree with all the rules, which I didn't. Just as long as the rules were standardized. However, that pipe dream was not to be and it came down to the same arguments brought to the table in this thread.

"Why isn't such and such involved?"
"That's not RAW."

Some people may have mislabeled the intent due to their own wishes and they clarified it. Some critiques are for improvement like the RAW arguments. Good - that's needed. However, this attitude that a standardized FAQ needs to include certain events like NOVA's crew for instance (which both of you brought up). No - no dice. If they wanted a standard FAQ so bad, they could have worked with existing groups, which was a very solid base. However, it was not to be. I can pull up plenty of historical conversations where some (not necessarily you two) have historically been "no so nice" in their critique and plainly only cared for their own image of the game.

I can say this. I did not agree all the rulings in the INAT and had plenty of major discussions over the years. I did not care to have my image of the game pushed on to others. The INAT was not my own or other member's personal image of the game. Each of us personally realized that the benefit to the community was larger than our own personal "brand of 40K" and was willing to set that bias aside. Too bad others couldn't.

Finally - Brad / Ed - I understand this is the internet and things can be misconstrued. I have nothing against you guys at all and have the same "good dude" thoughts as Brad in return. I personally feel the ideas presented in this case about RAW / Opinion and who should/has be involved in such an initiative as a standardized FAQ are just flawed.

 Inquisitor_Malice wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
See it is that exact attitude that will prevent it from ever happening. The idea that well, my group put together a comprehensive FAQ (which was well done, but very unwieldly for acutally use due to its size) and because not everyone jumped on it, that they deserve what they get.

It wasn't "my group". It was a collection of groups representing a broad area of the population. Just as for instance AdeptiCon is. Our sponsor, volunteer and player base branches wide and far.

Unweildly? - yet criticized just as much for not having enough detail and reasoning. Quite the no win situation.

Size - It was a comprehensive FAQ. Combine all of the GW FAQs, add some decent formatting and see what you get. Everything could be split out of the INAT just as easily if someone took a whole 20 seconds to select "print pages X-Y" for an army. But that was too challenging for some.

Again - misinformation and lack of understanding.

Breng77 wrote:
See it is that exact attitude that will prevent it from ever happening.

Yes - that attitude may prevent it from ever happening. Our feet were held to the fire, which is fine. However, after a while - you see your labors succeed in other areas like the growth of our events. You realize the environment has changed with 6th ed and you don't need this additional headache. With all the previous unjustified vitriol, hate, and drivel spewed, one no longer cares and moves forward with what you know best for the community. So yes - they reap what they sow. Funny, but Yes The Truth Hurts. LOL "oh the irony"

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." - we aren't falling for that trickery again.

So the final INAT FAQ is 102 pages of rules clarifications, which is 22 pgs more than the total of all current GW FAQs and much more densly packed with writing, if a player just printed the stuff they need it would be 15 pages for the BrB + 2-6 pages for their own army + the GW FAQs (so another 12-15 ish pages), so about the size of a second codex. So yes a bit larger than would be ideal. Unworkable no, and better players would do fine with it, but novice players will struggle with the additional info. I never criticized the INAT when it was in use, played events where it was used etc...but saying because a sect of people was upset, everyone can get what they deserve is silly. To state that people have no right to ask questions about the creation of said document, is also silly. But as has been said, this document is an FAQ for a certain set of events, and it is a fine document (which needs editing but is advertised as a draft anyway.) But many of your previous posts come across as "Well we are adepticon, and we are huge and great so how dare you question us, you smaller event organizers should know your role..." Which I know is probably not actually the case, and I appreciate all that adepticon has done in the community.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor_Malice wrote:

Some people may have mislabeled the intent due to their own wishes and they clarified it. Some critiques are for improvement like the RAW arguments. Good - that's needed. However, this attitude that a standardized FAQ needs to include certain events like NOVA's crew for instance (which both of you brought up). No - no dice. If they wanted a standard FAQ so bad, they could have worked with existing groups, which was a very solid base. However, it was not to be. I can pull up plenty of historical conversations where some (not necessarily you two) have historically been "no so nice" in their critique and plainly only cared for their own image of the game.
.

See where I in a position to attempt a unified FAQ (i'm not I don't have the recognition for it to be acceptable, nor the contacts.), I would at least ask all of the Major TOs at the beginning of the process, if they (or someone involved with their event:head judge, volunteer etc.) wished to be involved with the project given whatever framework was intended. That way where I asked why wasn't x event involved I could answer, they were approached but did not choose to participate at this time. Now maybe there is some tension between some of these parties that I (as an outsider) don't know about. To me it is not that NOVA/Adepticon/BAO/FOB/Wargamescon...must be involved, more that the option should be presented.

But as it is events will be great with their own FAQs, most of which will have a good deal of overlap in rulings anyway.

 Hulksmash wrote:
@Inquisitor Malice
You should probably relax a bit Greg. Your feelings were obviously hurt over the issues the INAT faced 2 years+ ago. It's understandable, you put time and effort into it. But lashing out at the community probably isn't the way to deal with it.

The YTTH comment was a joke. An ironic one at that.

More just disappointed in the fact that we will not see standardization due to personal actions and bias within the community. Has nothing to do with the my personal work, since I came on board later in the project. l believed in the initiative of standardization for a long time way before that. Some rocket scientists didn't just discover that standardization and RAW/RAI clarifications/rules changes can be a good thing.

Some community members need to be told if they are doing wrong. People hide behind a veil to keep the peace. Sometimes that is not good enough.

 Inquisitor_Malice wrote:
Some community members need to be told if they are doing wrong. People hide behind a veil to keep the peace. Sometimes that is not good enough.

On this we can agree. I don't really hold back my opinion even if it doesn't keep the peace. I'll be polite but I won't be quiet

Okay, so the original purpose of the thread (i.e., solicit feedback for specific FAQ questions) is LONG gone. I'm killing this thread. If you want to discuss the politics of adopting a universal tournament FAQ, please feel to start a thread for that.

If you want to discuss these particular rulings, let's have a new thread for that, too.