Whats everyones thoughts on the INAT FAQ?

[volrath8754]

So at my FLGS we use the INAT FAQ (http://www.adepticon.org/?page_id=687). Lately I have started to travel to the twin cities for a tournament every other month and they aren't the biggest fans of it.
So this has made me curious how does everyone feel about the INAT and why or why don't you use it?:confused:

[MVBrandt]

I don't like a lot of their rulings, especially ones th at seem to not be clear RAW. That said, is there anyone else who has put out and maintained such a comprehensive document?

[gcsmith]

Why is there a comp score at tournies i never understand

[MVBrandt]

Ugh, that's another discussion altogether, that dives deep into the brain of gamers who seem to think things are more competitive if you force heterogeneity.

[The AKH]

While there are a few rulings that I find a bit iffy, personally, it's a good general reference. And I agree with what MVBrandt said: you have to hand it to the guys who put it together. It's a good chunk of work, and very comprehensive. I wouldn't at all mind using it as a guide for rulings at tournaments.

[MVBrandt]

Addendum to that is I think if you host your own tourneys, you should do your own FAQ. Most peopl just don't, is all.

[Chumbalaya]

I like the idea behind it: a comprehensive, consistent set of rulings we can use across the country since GW doesn't seem to bother.

The document itself, however, is garbage. It's way too technical (01.11.11j1..h.d.a.amIcoolyet.fgsfds) and focuses on rule minutiae and rewrites rather than just clarifying.

[Jwolf]

The INAT is by far the most comprehensive FAQ ever done for 40K, and answers a huge percentage of questions that help prevent uneven rulings by judges.

I applaud the work, and think the INAT should evolve from its current state of being the Adepticon FAQ into a generally used and accepted supplemental document for 40K tournament play. I plan to have all the judges at BoLSCon familiar with the INAT and at least use it as a basis for answering questions not otherwise answered in the GW FAQs and basic rules.

Last year, defining terrain solved more issues than our FAQ did. 95+% of the judge interactions with players were caused by players being confused between the current and previous editions, including a couple that were rules in Third Edition, but not in Fourth or Fifth.

[MVBrandt]

There's a definite need for homogeneity in rules disputes across any legitimate tournament circuit. That doesn't exist currently, and will get worse with the GW Indy GT circuit.

No one - most assuredly including myself - is going to be ultra happy with Adepticon's rulings on an individual basis, b/c a lot of them are simply the expressed bias of a group of people that are not necessarily representative of a global game, yet believe they are.

Until someone else puts together a better document, though, what's the point of disliking it too much? Interestingly, there are people such as myself that would be willing to work with bloggers and other personas around the country to put together a FAQ that is more reflective of at least a national metagame, but barring the cooperation of a large group in this fashion, it's just not going to happen.

The INAT FAQ is not a Lamborghini, but without it we're all driving broken down pick-ups.

[Melissia]

Gah that's long.

It seems... decent enough, but I'm questioning some of the rulings (there's no need to list out every single psychic power that the Shield of Faith protects against for example, it specifically protects against ALL psychic powers and therefor if it is a psychic power it protects against it)... but that's how it always goes.

[BuFFo]

My local area doesn't use it for a few reasons;

1) Most of us don't even know it exists.

2) We are smart enough to come to our own conclusions about the game which isn't covered in the next reason.

3) We use the GW Erratas and FAQs.

4) Its crap. My local buddies and I come up with more sensible solutions. You know, because we can think for ourselves, which it seems many newer (post 2nd edition) 40k players cannot.

5) If I have any questions before entering a tourney, I will use the tourney's FAQ and/or contact the judges myself and ask questions.


The INAT FAQ is not a Lamborghini, but without it we're all driving broken down pick-ups.

I haven't been to a tourney yet that either didn't have its own FAQ or didn't have judges I could contact ahead of time to iron out any questions. I don't know what junky tournies you've been playing in lol.

[MVBrandt]

Careful not to take generalizations too far. I actually write my own FAQ for my annual outdoor summer tourney, and it works fine. It'll also get better with time.

My own $.02 is that there should be a consistent, reliable, fully and intricately FAQ'ed national tournament circuit. INAT is something that such a circuit *could* use, given there isn't anything else comparable at present.

If you have different game groups all coming to their own different resolutions, everyone's playing a different game, which makes evaluating caliber much more difficult.

Frankly, it's all kind of a hogwash. The way tournaments are run now with whacky battlepoint rules, different scenarios in every single tournament, different FAQ's used by some, etc., that none of them actually evaluate skill at all, so it's kind of ALL irrelevant ... you don't need a FAQ for friendly games, and the tournament system is already screwed up w/ or w/out a FAQ.

[Faultie]

I'd rather have different FAQs at various places, thus giving me a chance of having a good FAQ, than be guaranteed many of the poor rulings in a single, universal FAQ (not to single out INAT).
All FAQs are unofficial House Rules. If you're going to agree to goto someone else's house, use their rules. I generally don't complain they aren't the same as someone elses.

[MVBrandt]

This depends on your opinion of a tournament. I see it as a competitive event where clear winners, losers, and in betweens are evaluated in comparison to their peers. Best painted, best sportsmanship, best general; all of these things are evaluated based on a set of criteria that rather unfortunately varies widely from event to event. The more there is variety from event to event - different FAQs for each, for example - the less accurate the evaluation really is.

I think that INAT is rife with problems and poor rulings. I'd love to see well regarded, analytical individuals across the 40k metaverse put together a more effective, minimalistic and appropriate FAQ, and I'd love to see it used at every tournament, to better "regulate" the evaluation of best general at tournaments across the country/world. Heck, I'd love to see the same mission approaches, scenarios, scoring methodologies, and paint/sports/etc. evaluation procedures used at every single tournament. Allow for non-circuit tourneys that use their own rules for a change of pace, plus you've always got your local friends and groups.

The point of INAT FAQ is to attempt to create this ... everyman's tournament FAQ. It fails in being a perfect FAQ (not that you could get a perfect one honestly ...), but it's at least out there. What renders it irrelevant, however, is the mass variety in scoring procedures and scenarios from tourney to tourney.


B/c everything is so different, even if every tourney used the INAT it would not result in uniformity, b/c of the differences in how things play out by event due to rules and scens.

I'm getting a little redundant, like the screaming child wanting to be heard. Peace until more to comment on in a different vein, or in a deeper vein, is required.

[Bean]

I applaud the effort. Managing a comprehensive FAQ and errata document for 40k is a worthwhile goal, and it's something that GW should be ashamed for failing to do.

That being said, some of their rulings are pretty dubious, and several are just blatant changes to the rules that aren't necessary and, in my opinion, aren't desirable. I'm generally willing to go to it in instances where I feel the rules aren't clear, but I don't like going to it in situations where the rules are clear and it changes them.
Given that there are at least a handful of instances where the changes have been marked as 'clarifications' or even 'RAW' when they are neither, it renders the whole endeavor a little dubious.

If I were running a local tournament, I probably wouldn't bother using it. I like, however, that bigger tournaments, like Adepticon, do.

[Duke]

I agree with Jwolf in his post last page.

I believe that the INAT should be used in official tournaments as a basis for judges to be familiar with so that they can judge clearly. Im not saying that it should be held in the same light as the rule book, and that players should be able to make "table rulings," but if they cannot make a table ruling then there should be a FAQ that the judges can use as a basis for making rulings.

So it goes in this order
1. Rule book/ codex/ Errata/ GW FAQ as written
2. Players common sense/ roll off (i.e. Friendly table Rulings "Sure go ahead...we willl check it later",)
3. Judges common sense
4. INAT FAQ as written.

Obviously if there is a disagreement at step one go to step 2, if the disagreement continues then go to step three. etc...

Duke

[Polonius]

The INat FAQ is a really great piece of work. It blends the best parts of RAW, RAI, and how people actually play the damn game, and focuses more on having good games than on worrying about technical rules dilemmas.

While I can see people disagreeing on any number of rulings, it's better to have the rulings laid down and clear before hand rather than rely on arguing/calling a judge who rules arbitrarily/d6ing it. And that's what's important: in practice, rules questions aren't resolved by logical deconstructions online, but by some essentially arbitrary (or perhaps even biased) process.

I'd rather have all the coin flips resolved before I sit down to play, rather than in the middle.

[Melissia]

I don't know about you polonious, but I wouldn't agree to play by these rules because many seem to be rather questionably written and needlessly changed. Arbitrary changes like that are BS and as these are nothing more than houserules, you'd need my permission to play by them if I was involved in your game.

[Polonius]

I don't know about you polonious, but I wouldn't agree to play by these rules because many seem to be rather questionably written and needlessly changed. Arbitrary changes like that are BS and as these are nothing more than houserules, you'd need my permission to play by them if I was involved in your game.

Well, they are houserules. I don't want to get into a point by point deconstruction, but can you cite a specific example that you find egregious?

after talking to many of the guys that do it, they do represent a wider range of gamers than you'd think.

[MVBrandt]

Deffrollas not affecting vehicles is the biggest one that bothers me, and I don't play Orks.

When something says tank shocks do x, and rams are called a special kind of TANK SHOCK. But here's so not the place ...

[Polonius]

Deffrollas not affecting vehicles is the biggest one that bothers me, and I don't play Orks.

When something says tank shocks do x, and rams are called a special kind of TANK SHOCK. But here's so not the place ...

But that's just it. The fact that it's hotly debated means that while you might have made up your mind, or the local Big Fish or store owner has laid down the law, doesn't mean that nationally the decision is a clear cut.

My point is that most of the complaints about the INAT FAQ stem, not from being unable to see how they could rule in a certain way, but from being suprised that certain issues where questionable at all.

I had a professor in law school that used to tell us: never use the words "obviously" or "Clearly" in a brief or oral argument. If the issue were clear or obvious, we wouldn't be arguing it.

[Bean]

Well, they are houserules. I don't want to get into a point by point deconstruction, but can you cite a specific example that you find egregious?

after talking to many of the guys that do it, they do represent a wider range of gamers than you'd think.

The ruling which discusses disembarking from a surrounded vehicle. The rules as written are not unclear. They work just fine (though they leave it difficult to annihilate squads by destroying their transports).

The INAT FAQ changes them substantially to make it easier to trap squads inside vehicles, but uses such poor wording that it's not actually clear under what circumstances the ruling actually applies. They refer to "surrounding" a vehicle, but fail to make it clear what it means for a vehicle to be surrounded.

It took a perfectly functional rule and changed it to a rule which doesn't function properly--then marked as a "clarification," which it obviously is not. For reference, the entire text of the ruling is this:

+RB.67A.02 – Q: If a transport vehicle is ‘wrecked’
while completely surrounded by enemy models in
base contact, can the passengers disembark outside
of the surrounding enemies as long as they are still
within 2” of the vehicle’s hull but not within 1” of any
enemy (which is mathematically possible)?

A: No. Disembarking is a form of (non-normal) movement
and therefore they may not move through impassable terrain
and/or any models when disembarking [clarification].

[volrath8754]

My local area doesn't use it for a few reasons;

1) Most of us don't even know it exists.

2) We are smart enough to come to our own conclusions about the game which isn't covered in the next reason.

3) We use the GW Erratas and FAQs.

4) Its crap. My local buddies and I come up with more sensible solutions. You know, because we can think for ourselves, which it seems many newer (post 2nd edition) 40k players cannot.

5) If I have any questions before entering a tourney, I will use the tourney's FAQ and/or contact the judges myself and ask questions.

I haven't been to a tourney yet that either didn't have its own FAQ or didn't have judges I could contact ahead of time to iron out any questions. I don't know what junky tournies you've been playing in lol.

1. Fair enough.

2. So are we but what happens when the group is split evenly on a rules question and no FAQ covers it. Do you really dice off every time for months on end when it comes up?

3. Yup so do we.

4. I agree that some of what makes it in the INAT seems like BS but so does the crap in the GW FAQs so we have decided to take the good with the bad instead of spending the huge amount of time to house rule every last rules question we have ever seen.

5. Yup that's pretty standard across the board.

So a tournament is junk if they use the INAT? What about Adepticon its just junk... Frankly at the tournaments at my FLGS we almost don't need a judge the GW and INAT FAQs cover nearly every question that is out their.

Basically I feel that while INAT isn't perfect, if you're running a tournament and don't have a few weeks to devote to writing a comprehensive FAQ why not use INAT. Then everyone knows ahead of time how you will be deciding any rule disputes and frankly it makes a judges life much easier.

[Polonius]

Bean: I see your point. I think you could read the rules the way you describe. I also think it's not unreasonable to prevent a model from doing what can't normally be done (move through an enemy model). I guess I also don't find the phrase "completely surrounded" unclear, but that should show you that two reasonable people can read the same rules and arrive at different results.

One thing that some rules buffs are annoyed by is that I think they use a bit of common sense in writing these. Meaning, if you have a transport ringed completely by a squad, and you force the troops inside to get out, they should be destroyed. I mean, that makes sense, right?

[Bean]

Bean: I see your point. I think you could read the rules the way you describe. I also think it's not unreasonable to prevent a model from doing what can't normally be done (move through an enemy model). I guess I also don't find the phrase "completely surrounded" unclear, but that should show you that two reasonable people can read the same rules and arrive at different results.

One thing that some rules buffs are annoyed by is that I think they use a bit of common sense in writing these. Meaning, if you have a transport ringed completely by a squad, and you force the troops inside to get out, they should be destroyed. I mean, that makes sense, right?

I don't object so much to the suggested change in the rules. What I do think is that it should be acknowledged as a change, and that the result of the change should be functional. You say that you don't find the phrase 'completely surrounded' to be unclear, but I don't think you've really thought it through. For instance, in which of these examples is the vehicle actually completely surrounded?

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_EjPNVSQ1A0w/S0TOst7hxnI/AAAAAAAABsc/_CpB0lf-gBg/example%20rhino%20pic.jpg

Rhinos with their ingress/egress points marked in red, enemy models marked in blue.

The first (upper left) seems pretty thoroughly surrounded, but it's not completely surrounded. There are gaps between the enemies.

The second (upper right) has all of the ingress/egress points effectively blocked off, but the vehicle itself is not surrounded. Does the rule kick in, here, as it's written?

What about the third and the fourth?

Where is the cut-off line at which a vehicle is sufficiently "surrounded" for the ruling to kick in?

As for the actual text of the answer, disembarking models don't move--they're just placed within 2" of the hatches. A disembarking model doesn't have to move through an enemy model, even to disembark from a fully surroundedl rhino--it just shows up where it disembarks, according to the actual rules.


I agree that the actual rules are somewhat less 'common sense' than the rules they've tried to suggest in the INAT FAQ. The problem is that the rules they've suggested in the INAT FAQ don't actually accomplish what they try to accomplish. If they did, and they were marked as a rules change, they would bother me a lot less.

In order to function as it's intended, this errata would actually have to state that a disembarking model must be able to move from an ingress/egress point on the vehicle to its final position within 2" of that point without moving through impassible terrain or other models.

Without this sort of specificity, this ruling does nothing concrete at all, yet by giving the appearance of doing so, it confuses the issue.

[Polonius]

I interpreted completely surrounded to mean surrounded to the extent that an embarked squad could not perform even an emergency disembarkation. Meaning, the surrounding squad is in coherency around the entire vehicle, such that there is no gap large enough to place even a single base. so, the first one. The upper right isn't surrounded, and the other two aren't complete enough to prevent emergency disembarkation, as models could be placed at the corners.

I'll admit that the language could be tightened up.

Reading it through, I think from a RAW perspective you are correct, in that disembarkation isn't moving, and shouldn't be tied to those rules. I think most people play them as movement, however, which is partially what this ruling reflects.

[MVBrandt]

You've arrived at my issue sort of accidentally. I think that you're not seeing a true reflection of in-depth analysis and resolution by a varied and well-spread enough group of people. The INAT FAQ is the best comprehensive FAQ out there, but it's far from a "good" FAQ. It'd be cool if a really astute group of nationwide type folks were able to get together and establish a point by point.

What makes INAT both a hotly debated subject and widespread in use is that it's the FAQ of a very popular and large GT. So, it's referenced often.

[Lerra]

So at my FLGS we use the INAT FAQ (http://www.adepticon.org/?page_id=687). Lately I have started to travel to the twin cities for a tournament every other month and they aren't the biggest fans of it.
So this has made me curious how does everyone feel about the INAT and why or why don't you use it?:confused:

Are you talking about the Misty Mountain bi-monthly tournaments? That is the only bi-monthly tournament that I know of in the twin cities, and they are supposed to use the INAT FAQ. If that's what you're referring to, one of the occasional TOs at Misty is not very rules proficient, and when he's running the tournament, he doesn't always follow the INAT ruling unless you point it out to him. You can always ask the other players, too (we are a very trustworthy group overall, so it generally works out fine to ask a player who is a neutral 3rd party). I am at every Misty tourney and always bring a copy of the INAT FAQ. If the judge isn't following INAT FAQ, just let me know and I'll point out the rule to him. I'm pretty easy to find as I'm usually the only girl in the store :rolleyes: I missed the last tournament because I was sick, but I'll be at the one this weekend.

[Polonius]

You've arrived at my issue sort of accidentally. I think that you're not seeing a true reflection of in-depth analysis and resolution by a varied and well-spread enough group of people. The INAT FAQ is the best comprehensive FAQ out there, but it's far from a "good" FAQ. It'd be cool if a really astute group of nationwide type folks were able to get together and establish a point by point.

What makes INAT both a hotly debated subject and widespread in use is that it's the FAQ of a very popular and large GT. So, it's referenced often.

You are aware that the INAT faq is written by a varied and spread out group of people, right? It's not seven guys at a store in chicago.

I'm not accusing anybody of anything, but I know that gamers are geeks, and geeks are iconoclasts. If the group writing the FAQ is small, it will criticized for being the biased results of a small group of people. If the group were large, it will be criticized for valuing mob-rule and popularity over analysis.

By definition, nearly every serious FAQ is a close question, which means that roughly half of the reasonable people will come down on either side. Even if it's only 20/80, over a large document the number of disagreements adds up. Trust me on this. Find a half dozen guys that hate the INAT FAQ, and compare what results you don't like. I'd bet all the money in my pocket there will be horrible arguments.

[Bean]

I interpreted completely surrounded to mean surrounded to the extent that an embarked squad could not perform even an emergency disembarkation. Meaning, the surrounding squad is in coherency around the entire vehicle, such that there is no gap large enough to place even a single base. so, the first one. The upper right isn't surrounded, and the other two aren't complete enough to prevent emergency disembarkation, as models could be placed at the corners.

I'll admit that the language could be tightened up.


And that's all I was trying to say, really. "Completely surrounded" just isn't a bit of terminology which is 'tight' enough to really do what they want it to do, here, which is provide a final word on the discussion about what it takes to trap and annihilate a squad in a transport.



Reading it through, I think from a RAW perspective you are correct, in that disembarkation isn't moving, and shouldn't be tied to those rules. I think most people play them as movement, however, which is partially what this ruling reflects.

And if the ruling were a tight, comprehensive rules change that re-wrote the disembarkation rules in a way that worked, had no important words or phrases which were open to significant differences of interpretation, and was acknowledged as a change in the rules, I wouldn't mind so much.

The fact that it wasn't, though, and that there are similar instances of rules which were changed but not change well enough to actually work, makes the INAT FAQ a fairly dubious resource in my book.

[Polonius]

And that's all I was trying to say, really. "Completely surrounded" just isn't a bit of terminology which is 'tight' enough to really do what they want it to do, here, which is provide a final word on the discussion about what it takes to trap and annihilate a squad in a transport.

And if the ruling were a tight, comprehensive rules change that re-wrote the disembarkation rules in a way that worked, had no important words or phrases which were open to significant differences of interpretation, and was acknowledged as a change in the rules, I wouldn't mind so much.

The fact that it wasn't, though, and that there are similar instances of rules which were changed but not change well enough to actually work, makes the INAT FAQ a fairly dubious resource in my book.

Well, I guess the one thing I'd say is that the INAT FAQ, unlike the actual rules, is updated. You can email the guys that write it with your suggestions, and they'll listen. So, in some ways, I see your point in that if the work trying to clarify rules is, in itself, unclear, it looks bad. On the other hand, it's much more of a living document, and can and does improve with every iteration.

Five years ago Wikipedia was all kinds of unreliable. Now it's one of the best tertiary sources available on a wide range of subjects. Mistakes were found and corrected, and the same thing can happen with the INAT FAQ.

[Bean]

Well, I guess the one thing I'd say is that the INAT FAQ, unlike the actual rules, is updated. You can email the guys that write it with your suggestions, and they'll listen. So, in some ways, I see your point in that if the work trying to clarify rules is, in itself, unclear, it looks bad. On the other hand, it's much more of a living document, and can and does improve with every iteration.

Five years ago Wikipedia was all kinds of unreliable. Now it's one of the best tertiary sources available on a wide range of subjects. Mistakes were found and corrected, and the same thing can happen with the INAT FAQ.

I definitely agree, there. And, like I said in my original post, I give them a lot of credit for trying to do it--and doing a fairly good job of it, on the whole. Still, I don't want to run into situations in my games where I have to argue with my opponent about whether my Rhino is 'completely surrounded' or not, and I don't want to have to memorize another hundred pages of rules which will only apply to some of the games that I play. Despite the fact that they've put forth a good effort, those two facts are enough to dissuade me from using the INAT FAQ as a resource for most of my games.

Also, I did send them an email about this exact issue. The response I got was, basically, "yeah, we get your point but we think that "completely surrounded" is good enough wording, so we're probably not going to bother to change it."

Or to quote a portion of the email directly,

"Also, I do understand that it is possible to have different interpretations of: 'completely surrounded by enemy models in base contact', its pretty hard to be more clear without adding a diagram or explaining what we're talking about to a nauseating level of detail."

So, they know it doesn't work, but they're not going to put enough effort into it to actually make it work. Neither are they going to take out the change, despite the fact that they know their ruling doesn't work. That lost them a fair amount of credibility for me.

[MVBrandt]

In re: last reply to me, Pol, and in re: recent commentary, I'm trying to figure out what point you are attempting to make to me. From the get-go, my own first at least, it's an admirable and positive thing that someone has at least put together a fairly comprehensive FAQ of rather epic proportions.

That it is a living document is true, though I'm not sure how living or not ... it's hard to say where changes are really being made or not for me, b/c I don't follow it too religiously, and disagree with a lot of the rulings in the book as either being inadequate, causing more problems, or being wrong. That's fine - I'm hardly a rabid hater.

My preference would be to see a FAQ that was clear and concise enough for the overall community to adopt it for a proper tournament circuit. Let's leave aside the fact that the Indy GT Circuit is a hilarious joke for many other reasons for a moment. There are a lot of people who have problems with INAT ... and b/c it's the internet, everyone's going to have a problem w/ whatever you come up with, but there may be a way to do it that's ... perhaps better. Beats me as to how necessarily, and there's the INAT FAQ out there ... I go back to lamborghinis and broken down pick-ups. It's no world changingly awesome FAQ, but it's at least comprehensive.

[Polonius]

I definitely agree, there. And, like I said in my original post, I give them a lot of credit for trying to do it--and doing a fairly good job of it, on the whole. Still, I don't want to run into situations in my games where I have to argue with my opponent about whether my Rhino is 'completely surrounded' or not, and I don't want to have to memorize another hundred pages of rules which will only apply to some of the games that I play. Despite the fact that they've put forth a good effort, those two facts are enough to dissuade me from using the INAT FAQ as a resource for most of my games.

I don't use it for any of my games. I mean, if I have a question, I'll look it up, but I haven't exactly committed it to memory. Think of it like a pre-programmed d6: it gives you an answer when you need it. For some issues, it allows people to look up relevant stuff (deff rollas, etc) and know how a tourney will be called, but for most issues, it's simply a way to get consistent rulings.

There's a difference between justice and fairness. Justice is the idea that similar situations should be treated in a similar way, so that we don't hang one murderer while give another one 50 hours of community service for the same crime. Fairness is about finding the optimal solution for everybody. This FAQ is focused more on the consistency area.

As for being completely surrounded, there is only one time the rule could possibly kick in: when the squad inside cannot use the emergency disembark option. That can only happen when the transport is surrounded by enough enemy models and impassable terrain to not allow a model to be placed legally with 2" of the hull. So, if you can legally place a model within 2", then the ruling doesn't apply. You seem fixated on the idea of being surrounded, when the question is asking, and answering, if you can disembark through enemy models. The answer is no, regardless of being surrounded.

[Polonius]

In re: last reply to me, Pol, and in re: recent commentary, I'm trying to figure out what point you are attempting to make to me. From the get-go, my own first at least, it's an admirable and positive thing that someone has at least put together a fairly comprehensive FAQ of rather epic proportions.

That it is a living document is true, though I'm not sure how living or not ... it's hard to say where changes are really being made or not for me, b/c I don't follow it too religiously, and disagree with a lot of the rulings in the book as either being inadequate, causing more problems, or being wrong. That's fine - I'm hardly a rabid hater.

My preference would be to see a FAQ that was clear and concise enough for the overall community to adopt it for a proper tournament circuit. Let's leave aside the fact that the Indy GT Circuit is a hilarious joke for many other reasons for a moment. There are a lot of people who have problems with INAT ... and b/c it's the internet, everyone's going to have a problem w/ whatever you come up with, but there may be a way to do it that's ... perhaps better. Beats me as to how necessarily, and there's the INAT FAQ out there ... I go back to lamborghinis and broken down pick-ups. It's no world changingly awesome FAQ, but it's at least comprehensive.

I actually think it might be nearly impossible to create a document that's more accepted, by a purely volunteer staff.

There's an old Churchill quote: "Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." The point? You can't herd cats, and gamers are always going to fixate more on three bad things than a hundred good ones in something they feel they're being forced to accept.

[Polonius]

Also, I did send them an email about this exact issue. The response I got was, basically, "yeah, we get your point but we think that "completely surrounded" is good enough wording, so we're probably not going to bother to change it."

Or to quote a portion of the email directly,

"Also, I do understand that it is possible to have different interpretations of: 'completely surrounded by enemy models in base contact', its pretty hard to be more clear without adding a diagram or explaining what we're talking about to a nauseating level of detail."

So, they know it doesn't work, but they're not going to put enough effort into it to actually make it work. Neither are they going to take out the change, despite the fact that they know their ruling doesn't work. That lost them a fair amount of credibility for me.

I guess I kind of agree with them. I suppose they could say "completely surrounded (such that no model could legally move through the area immediately adjacent to the vehicles hull)", but as the ruling can only apply when no other form of disembarkation is legal, I think it's clear enough.

[Bean]

Or you could say:

A disembarking model must be able to move from a position in contact with an ingress/egress point on the vehicle (or any point on the vehicle's hull, in the case of an emergency disembark) to its final position within 2" of that point without moving through impassible terrain, through friendly models, or within an inch of enemy models.

Which is basically what I suggested to begin with. It accomplishes the goal and avoids ambiguous phrasing like, "completely surrounded."

[Polonius]

Fair enough. I still don't see the phrase as that ambiguous, but maybe I've seen enough cop movies where they shout "we have you completely surrounded" and when the guy tries to escape he gets shot.

[Denzark]

My preference would be to see a FAQ that was clear and concise enough for the overall community to adopt it for a proper tournament circuit.

This is a quite interesting comment for me. I went to GW Throne of Skulls GT in Warhammer World last year. the 150 strong competition managed to get by with GW FAQs, the odd assist from the judges, and common sense. There were Brits, Spanish, Norwegians and even a fella from Iceland.

I'm not saying I admire the frequency with which GW updates but is there really an essential crutch missing?

[Polonius]

This is a quite interesting comment for me. I went to GW Throne of Skulls GT in Warhammer World last year. the 150 strong competition managed to get by with GW FAQs, the odd assist from the judges, and common sense. There were Brits, Spanish, Norwegians and even a fella from Iceland.

I'm not saying I admire the frequency with which GW updates but is there really an essential crutch missing?

This gets brought up all the time. Tournaments have judges, judges make rulings. All the FAQ does, is tell you, in advance, what the judge's rulings will be.

[MVBrandt]

This is a quite interesting comment for me. I went to GW Throne of Skulls GT in Warhammer World last year. the 150 strong competition managed to get by with GW FAQs, the odd assist from the judges, and common sense. There were Brits, Spanish, Norwegians and even a fella from Iceland.

I'm not saying I admire the frequency with which GW updates but is there really an essential crutch missing?

Depends on your outlook.

I see tourneys as an evaluative copmetition, in principle. When every tourney uses different rulings for all the shady questions, and every tourney uses different scenarios and rulings, and the "final" tourney uses even more different ones, you aren't evaluating a damned thing.

More importantly, even within a single tourney, when most of the questions are answered by judges on the spot, and when the scenarios are different between rounds while your opponents / opposing armies are different, etc., you also aren't evaluating anything.

FAQ is part of the overall picture.

[Faultie]

You know what...nevermind.

[Melissia]

Well, they are houserules. I don't want to get into a point by point deconstruction, but can you cite a specific example that you find egregious?

after talking to many of the guys that do it, they do represent a wider range of gamers than you'd think.

I already did state the one that annoys me the most, mind you I didn't read through the whole thing (just the Sisters portion). There's no reason to list all the psychic powers certain things effect, when they say they effect all psychic powers. If the psychic power effects a model with Shield of Faith, for instance, then that psychic power is nullified on a roll of 5+, no matter which psychic power that is. People WILL use that wording to get an advantage, because people are *******s.

[slxiii]

I am not a fan of the INAT FAQ, mainly because every other ruling they have makes no sense game wise, for instance, the ruling that a tau skimmer cannot use it's landing gear if it is not modeled on the vehicle.... by that logic no marine army i've seen could use their frag or krak grenades....

[BuFFo]

1. Fair enough.

2. So are we but what happens when the group is split evenly on a rules question and no FAQ covers it. Do you really dice off every time for months on end when it comes up?

Yes, we do. It isn't that hard. Once you put your ego (not your ego, but a gamers ego in general) aside, and realize the game is about having fun, dicing off is perfectly fine.


4. I agree that some of what makes it in the INAT seems like BS but so does the crap in the GW FAQs so we have decided to take the good with the bad instead of spending the huge amount of time to house rule every last rules question we have ever seen.

I applaud you and your group for this! :D


So a tournament is junk if they use the INAT? What about Adepticon its just junk... Frankly at the tournaments at my FLGS we almost don't need a judge the GW and INAT FAQs cover nearly every question that is out their.

You are taking me out of context. I said nothing of the sort. :confused:


Basically I feel that while INAT isn't perfect, if you're running a tournament and don't have a few weeks to devote to writing a comprehensive FAQ why not use INAT. Then everyone knows ahead of time how you will be deciding any rule disputes and frankly it makes a judges life much easier.

Because, quite frankly, you don't need a few weeks to make a bible of every possibility.

All you need is a Judge. Thats it.:)

[Lerra]

As a player in a tournament, I appreciate knowing what houserules we'll be using a few weeks in advance, though - especially houserules that effect the way an army list could be built.

Example: a local tournament ruled that Wolf Guard with Logan Grimnar in the army take up both a troops slot and an elite slot. I brought Logan, 4 squads of wolf guard, and 2 dreadnoughts to this tournament. That's 6 elite slots. Oops. Thankfully my opponents all agreed to let me field my army even with the illegal FOC.

[slxiii]

Except the rule says they count as troops, not that they are scoring like troops.... they ARE troops in his army.....

[Lerra]

I didn't agree with the ruling, either. The argument goes something like this, though: "The codex says here that they are troops. The codex says over here that they are elites. Show me where it says they are no longer elites when they become troops." I think there was some handwaving about purchasing the wolf guard as elites first, and then they become troops, so both slots are filled. This was a substitute TO to replace the regular guy who was sick, so I didn't bother to argue it much.

Anyway, that was just an example showing why it's important to have houserules available beforehand.

[Melissia]

Yeah, that's moronic. Like saying Nobz purchased after getting a warboss are both a troops and an elites choice-- if you try and pull that malarkey on me I'll smack you.

[BuFFo]

As a player in a tournament, I appreciate knowing what houserules we'll be using a few weeks in advance, though - especially houserules that effect the way an army list could be built.

That is why you always have the option to call or email weeks/months in advance to find out. Lack of initiative does not require a FAQ.

Case in point... For 'Ard Boyz last year, I had to ask my local game store, and the semi finalist game store, for the same rulings. I got my answers, and I was a happy camper.

Wasn't exactly rocket science or taxing work to pick up a phone, dial numbers and burn calories to drive air out of my body, form shapes with my mouth parts, and ask questions! :p

At the Orlando Semi Finals, it was funny hearing the Judge declare before the game started that you could not ram with Ork vehicles. All the Ork players sighed and audibly whined about it. It was funny! Judge said, "You should have called or emailed us months in advance. If you aren't prepared, oh well. Thats not our fault. Its easier for us to deal with you on an individual level on the phone or email than it is to come up with a FAQ that can never cover all the questions we don't know you'll come up with."

[Polonius]

That story illustrates one of the big upsides to a prepared document.

There are really two seperate strands of argument. The first is the actual rulings made, and the second is the fact that all of those rulings are pre-made and given to participants. The first issue occurs at every tournament, and very rarely does it go down in such a way that everybody is happy. The second strand is the aspect that I think is over looked. Basically, if they sit and think and write down a bad ruling, odds are the ruling on the floor would be just as bad, if not worse, right? So at least this way, you can plan around knowing every bad ruling that can come your way.

[Melissia]

Assuming their FAQ actually covers your question.