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.

This is a very simple poll to get a rough idea of the acceptability of the FAQ to the Dakka population.

You don't need to give reasons for your answer. I don't want to start another argument thread.

I'll always be ready to use it. I'll also prefer it.

...you cant really force it on anyone though.

I think it makes for clear concise rules and I've got a copy that stays with my rules.

I'll definitely use it if I go to Adepticon (of course).

If another tournament I would like to attend opts to use the fact, then this would not change my desire to attend taht tournament. I don't care what FAQs are being used as long as I have access to them ahead of time so that I can adjust my list and play style.

If a tournament I want to attend chooses not to use the FAQ, well that's not different from any other tournament, so I would still chose to attend.

I do not plan on starting a movement at my local shop to get this FAQ recognized as "official" or anything, 'cuz most of our shop is not competitive enough to need something so all inclusive.

Considering it's the only comprehensive FAQ that I know of that's easliy availallbe and that it's good enough to be used at such a large even, I don't see why you wouldn't

Well, if past events are any indication:

You should start the poll with at least 100 yes.

I still don't even understand where the negativity for it is coming from. Especially when the naysayers can't even be bothered to quote the parts that they are against.

like I mentioned in the other thread, I consider it to be an 'advisor' to help argue rules disputes and come to a consensus.

But I don't consider it to be RAW. It's a tool to help understand RAW and prevent wasting time.

If I was running a tournament I would probably use it, or at least suggest it to the other organizers.

IntoTheRain wrote:I still don't even understand where the negativity for it is coming from. Especially when the naysayers can't even be bothered to quote the parts that they are against.

Funny. Very very funny.

Even though I may disagree with a (very) few rulings in it, I will use it in friendly games in my group. We all appreciate having any set of answers to the ambiguity that arises from RAW.

It will be used in our league and I shall implement it at Flatcon in late 08 (assuming 5.0 doesn't make them all redundant).

My personal group of freinds will use it and so does a Gamming club in my area. I belive it will also be used at a few events in my area.

I consider it canon.

I will use it only for Adepticon. Its been proven that it will take too much of a hassle to try and standardize it with most of the 40K players I play with.

Our group plans on using it for the rest of 4th edition. If the FAQ team can turn around the document relatively quickly for 5th edition, then it may be easier to move towards a more widely accepted FAQ standard.

I think for Adepticon it's an awesome accomplishment and definitely has it's place there.

Know what.... I won't use it.
I won't even bother to look at it again, since Adepticon isn't in my near future.

I won't use it because it has the "C" word in it (No... not THAT "C" word... the OTHER "C" word)...
CHANGE.

Not that change is bad... but it's not an official change. It was changed for the purposes of Adepticon.

That being said, I'm not criticizing it, either.
GW should attempt to do half as decent a job!

I think that those who are b!tching about it need to just drop it. Nobody is forcing them to use it... ever...
Even those planning on going to Adepticon don't have to use it... just don't go to Adepticon.

Of course, that's just my opinion, and I know there are those who will disagree.

Eric

Of course I'll use it. I'll use it whenever I can.

Yeah, it's not official, but (mostly) it's a bunch of common sense rulings, and I love it when more common sense is used.

Its not official so why bother use it? Not that I go to adepcon thing anyway being in the UK. If its not official GW material it not worth the paper its printed on in the real world. sure it has its place in gamer groups but its not universal.

It's an amazing piece of work, hopefully the 5th edition rules won't be such a mess that something this contentious is needed. It seems the more illogical, delusional, emotionally responsive, and immature types are the ones complaining loudly about it. Those that worked on it and those who have defended it don't seem to be utilizing any fallacies or arguing rhetorically(I say seem because I couldn't be bothered to read every single one of the 60 million words in that thread, usually it is best to skim such things).

That said I have the utmost respect for those who dislike it simply because it isn't GW sanctioned or that it has been contentious.

Had they just opined on the fuzzy and unclear rules , most likely I would have. However the freely admit to changing and/or making compleatly new rules. This , in my opinion , invalidates the whole body of work. Pity.

Sincity

Cite one example of something that massively changes the rules.

The 'rules changes' people keep harping on are nothing more than simply altering the rules text so that the game plays as it was intended to.

Example: The infamous bolt pistols and rapid fire weapons rules are fixed so that DA troops can actually use their bolt pistols and charge. Strictly speaking, is this a rules change? Yes. Should it be fixed? Yes. That is basically what all of these so called 'rules changes' are.

IntoTheRain wrote:Cite one example of something that massively changes the rules.

The 'rules changes' people keep harping on are nothing more than simply altering the rules text so that the game plays as it was intended to. (snip)

"Massively" is your word , I just said changed. The fact is that this FAQ. is nothing more than glorified house rules. They carry no weight of law and can only be enforced by a tournement organizer. If GW should adopt them , then I will use them . If not , then I won't. Good work was done on this project , make no mistake about it , but until it gets GWs' stamp of approval it is near worthless.

That is my opinion.
Sincity

Sincity wrote:

"Massively" is your word , I just said changed. The fact is that this FAQ. is nothing more than glorified house rules. They carry no weight of law and can only be enforced by a tournement organizer. If GW should adopt them , then I will use them . If not , then I won't. Good work was done on this project , make no mistake about it , but until it gets GWs' stamp of approval it is near worthless.

That is my opinion.
Sincity

Every and all FAQs ever published, GW or fan-made, change the rules, period. Some may not admit it, but they all do. Apparently the fact that we've actually been honest about the rules changes we've makes the FAQ less appealing for some.

This FAQ is not meant for general use. It is designed specifically for Adepticon and any other tournament whose organizers feel it is a useful tool for their tournament.

yakface wrote:
Every and all FAQs ever published, GW or fan-made, change the rules, period. Some may not admit it, but they all do. Apparently the fact that we've actually been honest about the rules changes we've makes the FAQ less appealing for some.

This FAQ is not meant for general use. It is designed specifically for Adepticon and any other tournament whose organizers feel it is a useful tool for their tournament.

No , change is not the issue here , God knows this game needs it. The issue is that someone other than GW is doing it. This work is a fine example of how it should be done .... by GW. The major appeal of this game is that I can go here or there and get a game with someone (that I may or may not know) with a universal set of rules.

I can , without a doubt , be sure that this FAQ will cause me to have AT LEAST one bad game in the near future. GWs rules are bad enough without the murkyness this FAQ will cause.

Unless GW adopts this FAQ , this is not helpful.

Sincity

>>Unless GW adopts this FAQ , this is not helpful.

It doesn't matter if GW doesn't adopt the FAQ if all the players do.

Obviously all the players won't -- plenty of people have expressed opposition for various reasons. However, the poll indicates that a majority of Dakkaites will adopt it. No doubt some of the "maybes" will accept when they start finding many other players are using it.

The FAQ causes no "murkiness" if it is accepted.

Sincity wrote:

I can , without a doubt , be sure that this FAQ will cause me to have AT LEAST one bad game in the near future. GWs rules are bad enough without the murkyness this FAQ will cause.

Unless GW adopts this FAQ , this is not helpful.

Sincity

The big question then is: when playing with the current rules plus FAQ, do you never have a bad game? If you play in an environment with enough defact errata and house rules as to answer all questions, then maybe you have great games every time. But you are still using non-GW rules!

Polonius wrote:
The big question then is: when playing with the current rules plus FAQ, do you never have a bad game? If you play in an environment with enough defact errata and house rules as to answer all questions, then maybe you have great games every time. But you are still using non-GW rules!

As a matter of fact I do have a bad game now and then , but these FAQ will not lessen those and only add new ones. You see , some people don't care what the rules OR FAQ say , they just try to manipulate eather to their advantage. We ( in the arias I play in ) don't use "house rules" . If something comes up that can not be resolved by the rules or mutual agreement , we fall back to the RULES and dice for it.

I salute the team that undertook this massive and needed task , now go get GW to sign on to it and we are good to go!! Otherwise I will not use them OR go to cons that do. Not ment to be a threat but rather just the truth.

Sincity

Kilkrazy wrote:>>Unless GW adopts this FAQ , this is not helpful.

It doesn't matter if GW doesn't adopt the FAQ if all the players do.

Obviously all the players won't -- plenty of people have expressed opposition for various reasons. However, the poll indicates that a majority of Dakkaites will adopt it. No doubt some of the "maybes" will accept when they start finding many other players are using it.

The FAQ causes no "murkiness" if it is accepted.

The changes to the rules make this document invalid. If I ever played against someone who deepstruck an Emperors Champion with a squad, I'd politely inform him the official rules do not allow it. If he pulled out this FAQ I'd laugh at him.

I'd pull out more examples, but I admit to not reading all of the FAQ once I saw rules changes like that, because I know it makes the rest of the FAQ an invalid document.

For example....is it fair to a player who sees that an EC is allowed to drop in with a squad despite him officially not being allowed to be held in reserve, doing that at Adepticon, and then rolling into the Las Vegas GT and being told he can't?

The Adepticon FAQ should at least try to clarify rules that across the board can universally be seen as needing clarifaction, without rules changes that change how the game will be played at different venues.

General Hobbs wrote:

The Adepticon FAQ should at least try to clarify rules that across the board can universally be seen as needing clarifaction, without rules changes that change how the game will be played at different venues.

There is no such thing as a rules issue that is universally seen as needing clarification. That's the whole problem with the idea that a FAQ should address only certain issues. . .there is no set standard that *anyone* can agree on.


And Sincity:

You're acting like this is the first tournament FAQ ever issued before. The FAQ would only be used by any tournament that is using it, just as is true with all tournament FAQs before it.

yakface wrote:

General Hobbs wrote:

The Adepticon FAQ should at least try to clarify rules that across the board can universally be seen as needing clarifaction, without rules changes that change how the game will be played at different venues.

There is no such thing as a rules issue that is universally seen as needing clarification. That's the whole problem with the idea that a FAQ should address only certain issues. . .there is no set standard that *anyone* can agree on.


And Sincity:

You're acting like this is the first tournament FAQ ever issued before. The FAQ would only be used by any tournament that is using it, just as is true with all tournament FAQs before it.

I disagree. The Emperor's Champion example I came up with did not need to be changed. There was no ambiguity about it....EC's cannot drop pod in.

Whereas say, the whole models armed with bolters and pistols, can they shoot and charge question, did need a ruling because some people play it RAI and others RAW.