Would you support a standardized FAQ

[gannam]

If all of the major tournament and GT sponsors got together once a year and released a comprehensive set of rulings on different gray areas of the game would you adopt this into your local meta game as a way to resolve disputes?

I have only been playing this game for a year now and have noticed that what is lacking is real consensus on these matters. I would even be willing to donate to such a cause to help bring the various parties together.

I know that there are challenges to this sort of thing and some will say, great idea, but it will never happen, but we will never know if no one ever tries. If this forum gets an overwhelming response, I will plunk down some of my hard earned money to make this thing happen including a website to talk about it, and will give up my own time to help organize it.

I will also post this on Heresy online and Dakka as well.

We have also created a petition if you do support this idea at http://40kfaq.blogspot.com/

[Aldramelech]

Goodbye

[ColCorbane]

Got to say, I wouldn't support it, it'd have to be official from GW otherwise any army building decisions you based on it would become invalid the moment you played someone who didn't accept it.

That's the problem with house rules.

[DarkLink]

What is needed is for GW to take some responsibility for its "Product". This is the only way this can happen realistically.

I remember when I read the page on FAQ vs Errata on their site, about how FAQ's are official houserules. My first thought was something to the effect of "you write the frickin' rules, don't be a wuss. Tell us exactly what to do, don't suggest we have the option to use your houserules, if we want to."

[Nabterayl]

Yeah, I have to say, I don't think I would support a unified FAQ. If I disagree with some international FAQ-writing counsel, I'm not going to defer to them just because they're an international FAQ-writing counsel. I'd rather trust my own professional skills and sportsmanship.

Now GW releasing errata to fix these issues we keep having rules discussions about? That I would support.

[gannam]

Yeah, I have to say, I don't think I would support a unified FAQ. If I disagree with some international FAQ-writing counsel, I'm not going to defer to them just because they're an international FAQ-writing counsel. I'd rather trust my own professional skills and sportsmanship.

Now GW releasing errata to fix these issues we keep having rules discussions about? That I would support.

Well, what if you and your buddy were in disagreement on some rules and needed somewhere to turn. I think something like this would be handy in a situation like that.

[Nabterayl]

Well, if we're in disagreement, one of two things has happened:
We aren't at the table, and cannot come to a good faith agreement about what the rules actually say.
We are at the table, and neither of us is a good enough sport to defer to the other's interpretation.
If we're in the first situation, I don't want a FAQ that tells me what the answer is, I want a reasoned explanation as to why the answer is what the FAQ-writer says it is. After all, we're not at the table, so we've got all the time in the world, and - speaking strictly for myself here - I'm a professional reader and writer of complicated interrelated documents, so I'm not likely to be satisfied by some group saying, "This Is The Answer" with no explanation. FAQs generally do not provide their reasoning, and there are places on the internet I can go, such as this forum, to get a civilized, educated discussion. Discussions like that carry more weight with me than a collection of tournament organizers stating in conclusory fashion the solution to an interpretive difficulty.

If we're in the second situation, things have already gotten really bad, because neither I nor my opponent are man enough to defer to the other. In that situation we need an arbitrary source of authority to break the logjam, and I don't see why a 4+ is any worse than an international FAQ when it comes to providing an arbitrary source of authority. A 4+ at least has the virtue of not needing to be memorized or looked up. And after the game, when we have plenty of time, we can figure out what the right answer is in a more leisurely fashion (see situation #1).

EDIT: Mind, I can see the point of a unified international FAQ for the sake of consistency across tournaments. But as somebody who is not particularly interested in tournaments, it's not strictly fair to say I would support such an endeavor. I certainly wouldn't oppose it, but I wouldn't devote any of my own time or money to help make it happen, which is what you seem to be talking about.

[Lerra]

The closest thing right now to a standardized tournament FAQ is the INAT (Independent National) FAQ.

Most people seem to have at least one issue with the INAT FAQ, but at the bottom of the FAQ it says that you are free to edit, borrow, or steal their FAQ and use it to your own ends.

INAT FAQ is very well accepted in my region tho (Midwest). I've never seen a tournament that doesn't use the INAT FAQ.

[Tynskel]

INAT FAQ is crap. It may be 'accepted' in the Midwest, but the ruling on the answers half of the time do not even try to use the 40k Rulebook to justify their answers. In a lot of cases, the INAT FAQ goes AGAINST the 40k rulebook, which is redonkulous.

An International FAQ will cause the same problems.

It would be better for individual tournament to come up with their own FAQs. They write their own scenarios with their own special rules. They should write their own FAQs to help clarify situations for their own special scenarios.

As for GW taking responsibility for its 'product' is kinda silly on the part of that writer. Translations between books is difficult, and is not always exact. Most cases, their codex books are fine, it is just the Main Rulebook sometimes rules in places all over the book. I have found that almost everything that has a FAQ (not errata) on the GW site often has the same solutions buried somewhere in the 40k Rulebook.

[Shavnir]

As for GW taking responsibility for its 'product' is kinda silly on the part of that writer. Translations between books is difficult, and is not always exact. Most cases, their codex books are fine, it is just the Main Rulebook sometimes rules in places all over the book. I have found that almost everything that has a FAQ (not errata) on the GW site often has the same solutions buried somewhere in the 40k Rulebook.

See, this just isn't right. If you're talking about the English codecies that is you've still got a giant wall of unresolved issues ranging from those with near obvious answers (deffrollas not usable on ramming) to those where the rulebook utterly fails to give you any sort of answer (models falling back out of transports). The fact that a tournament needs to have a 100+ page document just to outline what the rules do and don't say speaks volumes for the poor quality of writing in the rules not to mention the utterly appalling lack of support.

[BuFFo]

If all of the major tournament and GT sponsors got together once a year and released a comprehensive set of rulings on different gray areas of the game would you adopt this into your local meta game as a way to resolve disputes?

NO.

I do not need strangers I will never meet create house rules that I am perfectly capable of doing with my opponent/ local group.

If anything, GW should make MORE erratas and LESS faqs.


I have only been playing this game for a year now and have noticed that what is lacking is real consensus on these matters. I would even be willing to donate to such a cause to help bring the various parties together.

GW is stuck in the 80's / 80's mindset of gaming, where hobbyists are able to be adults and play the game for fun. What GW has not understood yet is that the modern gamer is a instant gratification gamer that requires less thinking on their part to play a game.

Modern gamers need their hands held. It is as simple as that.


The fact that a tournament needs to have a 100+ page document just to outline what the rules do and don't say speaks volumes for the poor quality of writing in the rules not to mention the utterly appalling lack of support.

This is NOT true at all.

What you, as a modern gamer, fails to realize is that Games Workshop does NOT NOT NOT NOT make Tournament style games. 40k, Heroquest, Fantasy, Epic, etc.... GW is a Minatures Company. They are in this business of selling models.

The rules are secondary.

Just because 'we' as gamer think that GW should be making tighter rules does not make GW somehow lazy. GW, for nearly 30 years, has been in the business of making a HOBBY, not a tournament style game like Magic the Gathering, or even Warmachine.

GW makes the exact product they have been making since Steve helped create the company nearly three decades ago;

Models.

That is why you, as the hobbyist, are free to make up rules to use the models. The game is NOT about the rules, but about drinking beer and having NON COMPETITIVE fun with your friends. Who cares who wins!!! The game isn't about winning at all. It is about telling a story and playing with little models.

I applaud GW, even though becoming a corporate entity, for staying true to their roots as being a model making company.

[Shavnir]

This is NOT true at all.

What you, as a modern gamer, fails to realize is that Games Workshop does NOT NOT NOT NOT make Tournament style games. 40k, Heroquest, Fantasy, Epic, etc.... GW is a Minatures Company. They are in this business of selling models.

The rules are secondary.


Then they should stop running tournaments and encouraging tournament play. Or they should man up and just write some comprehensive rulings. Its not like an annual reply to rules questions you've already houseruled about matters...don't you already ignore the FAQs?

[HsojVvad]

@ Buffo. While I love what you said and agree abit, that dosn't matter that GW is a model compnay first. They still make rules, they still make codiciies so they still responsable for their shoddy writing. Just because they are a minatures company first it is no excuse.

So I guess if somebode buys a Honda car, and it breaks down, it's not Hondas fault because they also make lawn mowers. Or maybe Sony shouldn't fix someones PS3 because they are more involved in making movies or music, or making TV's instead, DVD players and what ever they do?

GW makes and sells an asortment of stuff. They are responsible for what ever they sell and should be help accountable for what they sell.

People who buy their products have a right to complain if they don't like it.

If GW is a miniature company first, and we shouldn't complain about their writing or what not, then maybe we shouldn't be buying their rule books and codex. So I guess we should just get their rules and codex for free then, then we can't complain.

[Nabterayl]

People who buy their products have a right to complain if they don't like it.
You know, I'm with you up until this point. People who buy defective products have (generally) a right to un-buy them. That's it.

Buying GW products does not give you the right to complain about them. Buying GW products does not obligate GW to make their products better. Buying GW products obligates GW to deliver the product you purchased, in the state that you purchased it in.

I'm reminded of something that Neil Gaiman said (http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2009/05/entitlement-issues.html) once about a similar issue, albeit in a different entertainment genre.

[BuFFo]

ignore.

[BuFFo]

Then they should stop running tournaments and encouraging tournament play.

GW rarely runs tournaments in the U.S.. What they do is provide prize support to independent organizers. I don't know how it is in the U.K., though.


Or they should man up and just write some comprehensive rulings.

40k is not a comprehensive game.


don't you already ignore the FAQs?

I use the FAQs on the GW site like anyone else. I don't remember telling you otherwise.


@ Buffo. While I love what you said and agree abit, that dosn't matter that GW is a model compnay first. They still make rules, they still make codiciies so they still responsable for their shoddy writing. Just because they are a minatures company first it is no excuse.

Repeat, GW does not CARE about rules. They sell models. What are you not understanding?

40k is a game where both participants use models to have a good time. It is as simple as that.


So I guess if somebode buys a Honda car, and it breaks down, it's not Hondas fault because they also make lawn mowers. Or maybe Sony shouldn't fix someones PS3 because they are more involved in making movies or music, or making TV's instead, DVD players and what ever they do?

Your examples have nothing to do with the subject at hand. You assume 40k is somehow broken.

The only thing broken about 40k is the people who don't understand that GW sells a HOBBY, not a game.


GW makes and sells an asortment of stuff. They are responsible for what ever they sell and should be help accountable for what they sell.

You are right.


People who buy their products have a right to complain if they don't like it.

You have a right? really? You need to show me in your contract with GW that you have a right to anything. Maybe it is in your Constitution?


If GW is a miniature company first, and we shouldn't complain about their writing or what not, then maybe we shouldn't be buying their rule books and codex. So I guess we should just get their rules and codex for free then, then we can't complain.

You can complain about whatever you want. The day you understand what the GW Hobby is, is the day you'll enjoy playing the game.

[Kahoolin]

As usual on this topic I agree with BuFFo and Nabterayl. GW is not required to do anything - they do what they feel like and what they think is good for their shareholders, not necessarily in that order. Suggesting that they should do something is just empty bluster.

I wouldn't support a standardized FAQ, mainly because anybody who decided they didn't feel like following it wouldn't. The fact that people want FAQs means that they feel like they need an authority to resolve rules issues. If GW is not going to be that authority (and they have repeatedly expressed a lack of interest in this area), then who else could be? Do nations do what the UN tells them to do? Only when they feel like it.

[gannam]

are you aware that the INAT faqs use the GW faqs as the foundation of their guide? They simply expand it to include things that GW doesn't cover.

The problem I have run into in Dallas is that there is not a ton of respect for INAT. Perhaps its regional. I really don't know.

I know I play a small part in all this. MY main idea was to get the conversations started, with the hopes that others in a better position than myself would run with it.

The great thing about FAQ's and Errata is that if you don't like them, then don't use them.

But from the feedback I have gotten from this site and others, early indications appear that the community leans to supporting something like this. The jury is still out. Let the discussion continue.

[Nabterayl]

I'm curious, Gannam ... in what situations do you find the lack of local INAT respect to be a problem? Maybe I'm just lucky with the folks I game with, but I've never found the lack of GW rules "support" to cause actual gameplay issues. There are holes, sure, but we decide how to fill them and move on.

[gannam]

I'm curious, Gannam ... in what situations do you find the lack of local INAT respect to be a problem? Maybe I'm just lucky with the folks I game with, but I've never found the lack of GW rules "support" to cause actual gameplay issues. There are holes, sure, but we decide how to fill them and move on.

It has more to do with having a quick and easy way to settle most rules arguments. One of the issues is that yes in large tournaments there are nice FAQ's and paid judges. but with most small events, there is no consistency around rules interpretations. I am sure you can all see that with how these types of forums go back and forth.

Consistency is the name of the game, and hell, maybe, just maybe, this will grab GW's attention, and they will realize that there is money to be made in making their own forums where they offer rules clarifications and the like.

[Shavnir]

40k is not a comprehensive game.
Repeat, GW does not CARE about rules. They sell models. What are you not understanding?
40k is a game where both participants use models to have a good time. It is as simple as that.

I know they don't care about rules. I don't know why you're okay with that.


Your examples have nothing to do with the subject at hand. You assume 40k is somehow broken.

The only thing broken about 40k is the people who don't understand that GW sells a HOBBY, not a game.

Why are you so openly hostile toward people that want 40k to be fixed? What would them spending an iota of effort to close the holes cost you?

[Nabterayl]

So, from the sound of it, you run into trouble at small tournaments, because the organizers haven't bothered to put together (or adopt) a consistent set of rules, and your opponents at small tournaments aren't good enough sports to resolve the issue quickly and without acrimony at the table?

If that's your situation then I can certainly acknowledge the utility of a FAQ that would save your small tournament organizers the trouble of publishing their own version of INAT. Still not something I would have much use for personally, but my sympathies for your troubles.

[gannam]

So, from the sound of it, you run into trouble at small tournaments, because the organizers haven't bothered to put together (or adopt) a consistent set of rules, and your opponents at small tournaments aren't good enough sports to resolve the issue quickly and without acrimony at the table?

If that's your situation then I can certainly acknowledge the utility of a FAQ that would save your small tournament organizers the trouble of publishing their own version of INAT. Still not something I would have much use for personally, but my sympathies for your troubles.

I will get over it. If I am not having fun, I will pack up and go home. I just hear complaint after complaint, and I am offering a solution. A perfect one? far from it, but a solution none the less. I would like to see more people play this game. But the learning curve and the rules lawyers and the cheese "bend the rules" armies turn people away. OH, and the stupidly high cost as well.

There are many people who bust their butts to make these big GT's work well and I think this is a great opportunity to share their hard work with the community at large.

[Nabterayl]

I know they don't care about rules. I don't know why you're okay with that.
Speaking for myself and not BuFFo, I'm "okay" with it because the product in its present state gets the job done. Would I like it to be better? Sure.


Why are you so openly hostile toward people that want 40k to be fixed? What would them spending an iota of effort to close the holes cost you?
Again, speaking for myself and not BuFFo, it's not people who want 40K to be "fixed" that bother me. I'd be happy for GW to offer more rules support than it does.

What bothers me is people who feel like GW owes it to them to offer more rules support, or write better rules, because I object to the sense of entitlement evidenced thereby. There are people who talk as if paying GW $50 for a model creates a contract whereby GW is obligated to continually improve and refine the game. No such contract exists, even if over your lifetime you've spent $100,000 in GW models, hobby supplies, and books. GW doesn't owe its players a thing.

[Shavnir]

What bothers me is people who feel like GW owes it to them to offer more rules support, or write better rules, because I object to the sense of entitlement evidenced thereby. There are people who talk as if paying GW $50 for a model creates a contract whereby GW is obligated to continually improve and refine the game. No such contract exists, even if over your lifetime you've spent $100,000 in GW models, hobby supplies, and books. GW doesn't owe its players a thing.

Yea, its pretty obvious that GW doesn't care about the game as long as players keep buying more space marines. Doesn't mean we all have to like that fact though. ;)

[Nabterayl]

Don't have to like it, no, but we (speaking of the general internet-dwelling we, here) also don't have to whine about it on the internet as if GW has somehow failed to do something they promised us they would do, or morally owe it to us to do.

[Polonius]

So, from the sound of it, you run into trouble at small tournaments, because the organizers haven't bothered to put together (or adopt) a consistent set of rules, and your opponents at small tournaments aren't good enough sports to resolve the issue quickly and without acrimony at the table?

If that's your situation then I can certainly acknowledge the utility of a FAQ that would save your small tournament organizers the trouble of publishing their own version of INAT. Still not something I would have much use for personally, but my sympathies for your troubles.

That's pretty much it. Clubs and more insular tournaments don't need a FAQ, because everybody knows the house rules and/or defer to some authority (store owner, TO, etc).

I'd like it if when I traveled to a new store, or a big GT, I knew what the ruling were going to be for stuff. It makes things easier when not everybody is on the same page.

Competitive gamers that travel love tournaments that use the INAT, not because of it's value as an accurate answer, but because of it's value as a consistent answer.

[BuFFo]

Consistency is the name of the game, and hell, maybe, just maybe, this will grab GW's attention, and they will realize that there is money to be made in making their own forums where they offer rules clarifications and the like.

GW had its own forum for close to 5ish years from 2001+, until it got shut down.

Why did GW shut it down? Well, I do not know the exact answers, but the amount of crying and whining on that forum dwarfs anything you will ever see on Warsewer, 40kraponline and Krappa Krappa combined.


I know they don't care about rules. I don't know why you're okay with that.

Personally, I have been playing 40k since 1988. I was Eight years old when I started.

In Rogue Trader, you had two players and a Game Master who ran the game.

Were the rules in my hands? No, they weren't. First off, the Game Master decided everything, and second, everything about the game was so random, that even list building was a crap shoot.

In 2nd edition, the main armies were being established and the model line was not fleshed out yet. Were the rules in my hands? Nope. If I wanted to use a certain vehicle, I had to scratch build it. This was before VDR. If you made your own Ork Drop Pod in 2nd edition, no one questioned it. You built it, you play with it.

The reason why I don't expect GW to be 'better' is because I have been in this hobby for over two decades, and I know first hand that the game has never been about the rules. It has always been about adjusting the rules to suit the need of the game at hand.

Try reading a White Dwarf lately... You will notice that just about ALL the battle reports, especially Ork ones, both players invent rules to make the scenario fun!

You just aren't getting it.... :confused:


Why are you so openly hostile toward people that want 40k to be fixed?

If you think I am hostile, I cannot help you on that.

If you want 40k to be 'fixed', I have a perfect solution for you...

BRAVO!!!!

I fixed 40k to be more like Magic the Gathering with stricter, tighter rules.... I call it Warmachine!!! It is like 40k, but with the fun sucked out and strict rules shoved in.

Now go play Warmachine and enjoy!!! :D


What would them spending an iota of effort to close the holes cost you?

A cute little puppy?

[Nabterayl]

Competitive gamers that travel love tournaments that use the INAT, not because of it's value as an accurate answer, but because of it's value as a consistent answer.
Yeah, that seems ... bizarre to me, but I admit that I don't really get the tournament scene.

[Shavnir]

I fixed 40k to be more like Magic the Gathering with stricter, tighter rules.... I call it Warmachine!!! It is like 40k, but with the fun sucked out and strict rules shoved in.

Now go play Warmachine and enjoy!!! :D


I do enjoy Warmachine but I'd also like my secondary game to be equally enjoyable. If you count randomly ruling things as you see fit as "fun" there are plenty of LARP groups you could join. In your mind are strict rules without gaping holes and fun mutually exclusive? Hint : There wouldn't be as many rules arguments if they addressed them with FAQs. Writing better would help too but I'm not expecting this stone to start bleeding anytime soon.


Yeah, that seems ... bizarre to me, but I admit that I don't really get the tournament scene.

Out of curiosity which part seems bizarre? Traveling all over for tournaments or wanting a standardized answer?

[Xas]

for friendly games I dont need it.


for tournies I'd rather have a 100 page catalog of F&A than beeing forced to dice off against a jerk that uses artificially bad text understanding (which would eveng et them kicked out of first class basic school) to try and get an advantage.

judges are only good for so far because they are also human, susceptible to stress and what not. a simple one liner of "can unit A do thing B? yes" is better in this regard.

[Nabterayl]

Out of curiosity which part seems bizarre? Traveling all over for tournaments or wanting a standardized answer?
Neither, really. What seems bizarre to me is the need for a standardized answer. To my way of thinking, the whole point of playing a wargame is to demonstrate tactical skill - the ability to utilize the tools at hand to achieve one's goal in any given asymmetrical contest. Consequently, to my way of thinking, the point of a tournament should be to try to find the best tactician.

By contrast, a 40K tournament whose point is to find the best 40K player is uninteresting to me. I have no interest in being a good 40K player but a bad tactician. The motivation behind the desire for consistent rules seems to be that people worry about losing access to some key tactic, or gaining access to some advantage that they didn't take into account when building their list - or worse, their opponents gaining access to some advantage that they weren't prepared for. I don't really understand that worry. If you can't win just because you find out at the last minute that Spirit Leech no longer affects units in transports (or that it suddenly does), or deffrollas suddenly work when ramming, or the Book of St. Lucius is no protection against Weaken Resolve, or things like that ... well, I guess I'm just not very convinced that you're actually the best tactician in the room.

Of course I realize that in reality you can never point to a single change in the game and say, "That's why I lost." It might be that the game you lost with a wonky ruling on the Book of St. Lucius also put you at a disadvantage in ten different other ways; who can say? Or maybe the game you won despite finding out at the last second that those five enemy battlewagons could deffroll your Chimeras was really won because your opponent made a bunch of dumb mistakes. What you'd really want is a tournament with enough heats that players can agree that so-and-so kicks *** even when the dice and the rules are against him, even when playing missions his army is unsuited to, even when playing against a tough, canny opponent.

Most tournaments (maybe all tournaments) don't have the time to find that kind of player. But still, focusing on rules consistency seems to me contrary (albeit in a small way) to what it seems to me like tournaments should be about.

[Rapture]

A lot of people on this site have strong convictions. So strong that, regardless of what is logical or good for the game, they stick to their guns. When discussions turn into a competition of polite but direct insults no one gains anything.

Some people are asking for tighter rules. Anyone who say that is a waste is being completely unreasonable. A few proofreading sessions by outside writers and gamers combined with play testing and listening to the problems that the community sees with the rules would only make things better. Sure it takes time and money, but compared to the original investment that developing a system of rules it would not be a lot at all. Especially if the community is used as a tool.

People can argue that only bad sportsmen and idiots try to bend the rules but there are plenty of instances where gaps or inconsistencies in wording lead to legitimate differences in understanding. Reading through the countless pages about death rollers or the doom of malantai should be proof enough for anyone that different interpretations are possible.

Gamesworkshop's method of handling rule questions is not very good at all. They have a website with an errata section that could potentially house any edits or additions that the community calls for. Sure it is a modeling company, but how many of us would have the models that we do if there wasn't rules to go along with them? There isn't anything wrong with people wanting the company and the game to improve.

[Nabterayl]

A lot of people on this site have strong convictions. So strong that, regardless of what is logical or good for the game, they stick to their guns. When discussions turn into a competition of polite but direct insults no one gains anything.

Some people are asking for tighter rules. Anyone who say that is a waste is being completely unreasonable. A few proofreading sessions by outside writers and gamers combined with play testing and listening to the problems that the community sees with the rules would only make things better. Sure it takes time and money, but compared to the original investment that developing a system of rules it would not be a lot at all. Especially if the community is used as a tool.

People can argue that only bad sportsmen and idiots try to bend the rules but there are plenty of instances where gaps or inconsistencies in wording lead to legitimate differences in understanding. Reading through the countless pages about death rollers or the doom of malantai should be proof enough for anyone that different interpretations are possible.

Gamesworkshop's method of handling rule questions is not very good at all. They have a website with an errata section that could potentially house any edits or additions that the community calls for. Sure it is a modeling company, but how many of us would have the models that we do if there wasn't rules to go along with them? There isn't anything wrong with people wanting the company and the game to improve.
Just in case you were talking about me, I'd like to add that people on this site (myself included) also have a strong tendency to sidetrack conversations to hammer out minor thread sidebars in laborious detail. I didn't mean to insult anybody in my last post about tournaments. I was just trying to explain why the whole tournament scene makes no sense to me.

[gannam]

The dialog going on about this topic is a great thing to see. Please remember that this thread is also going on at the following links.

Please feel free to jump in and share your opinion.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/jforum.page?module=posts&action=list&topic_id=279870&viewResults=true

http://www.heresy-online.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=17

[Lerra]

Neither, really. What seems bizarre to me is the need for a standardized answer. To my way of thinking, the whole point of playing a wargame is to demonstrate tactical skill - the ability to utilize the tools at hand to achieve one's goal in any given asymmetrical contest. Consequently, to my way of thinking, the point of a tournament should be to try to find the best tactician.

. . .

But still, focusing on rules consistency seems to me contrary (albeit in a small way) to what it seems to me like tournaments should be about.

This is true for the small rules issues that make up the majority of FAQs, but some issues are army-breaking. For example, I once brought a SW list to a tournament at a new gaming store that included Logan Grimnar and 5 squads of Wolf Guard (the wolf guard were my only troops selections). I was told by the TO that Wolf Guard don't count toward the mandatory 2 troop minimum because they are elite choices that become troops (he also ruled that you can't take more than 3 squads of wolf guard because of the limit of 3 elites choices). I heartily disagree with this ruling, but I would be willing to go along with it as long as I know about it in advance. I have another list that runs a mix of grey hunters and wolf guard, and would have no issues with using that list instead. Unfortunately, I hadn't brought those models with me.

Bad rulings are less harmful than bad surprise rulings.

Honestly, I don't really care where the rules come from - GW, FAQs, the TO who hates Space Wolves, house rules, whatever. As long as they are consistent, I can find a way to work within them and have a good time.

A good list-builder can find a way to adapt to even the most oddball set of house rules.

[Rapture]

Just in case you were talking about me,
Not necessarily.

But I will say that it is important to look at the hobby as a whole.

Just because I don't like nachos doesn't mean I won't put some out at a party I am having. Especially if those nachos draw in some other people and make the party better as a whole.

Tournaments are just like nachos. They need to be considered.

[Nabterayl]

Sure, but if I don't like nachos, I'm not likely to chip in if somebody decides to make a nacho run in the middle of a party.

Like I've said, I'm down with GW improving the rules. But I don't think somebody else trying to do it instead would benefit me personally, or my personal gaming group, all that much. If I were a tournament player I could see the benefit, but that goes back to chipping in on the nachos.

I have no problem with an endeavor like this, but it sounded like Gannam's question was whether or not we as a community (or, by extension, specific community members) would be willing to devote time and effort to making it happen, and I personally am not willing to step up all that much.

[Rapture]

Sure, but if I don't like nachos, I'm not likely to chip in if somebody decides to make a nacho run in the middle of a party.

Like I've said, I'm down with GW improving the rules. But I don't think somebody else trying to do it instead would benefit me personally, or my personal gaming group, all that much. If I were a tournament player I could see the benefit, but that goes back to chipping in on the nachos.

I have no problem with an endeavor like this, but it sounded like Gannam's question was whether or not we as a community (or, by extension, specific community members) would be willing to devote time and effort to making it happen, and I personally am not willing to step up all that much.

I agree 100%. I am not interested in the intervention of anyone other than Gamesworkshop. The INAT FAQ is meaningless to me as anything other than a reference.

I guess what I think would be the best would be a living errata document that could tackle all of the serious questions on the fly.

[gannam]

We have also created a petition if you do support this idea at http://40kfaq.blogspot.com/

[Tynskel]

See, this just isn't right. If you're talking about the English codecies that is you've still got a giant wall of unresolved issues ranging from those with near obvious answers (deffrollas not usable on ramming) to those where the rulebook utterly fails to give you any sort of answer (models falling back out of transports). The fact that a tournament needs to have a 100+ page document just to outline what the rules do and don't say speaks volumes for the poor quality of writing in the rules not to mention the utterly appalling lack of support.

The problem isn't the rulebook, it is the people reading the rulebook

Take the deathrolla. Ram is a subset rule of Tank Shock. It stops following the Tank Shock rules when it gets closer than 1" away from a tank. Since it is no longer following the rules for Tank Shock, the Deathrolla doesn't work. This is all from reading the rulebook with a 'logic' based format, which is how EVERYONE should be reading the rules. It isn't rocket science, and the rule is quite clear. You should check out the BOLS deathrolla space wolves fight thread: I got schooled in the logic, and when I re-read the book, it made perfect sense that the Deathrolla doesn't work.

As for Transport and falling back- there are other threads that completely walk through the rules logically.

You do not need some 100 page FAQ that DOES NOT FOLLOW the 40k rulebook. That's what the INAT does. It is dumb.

Doom of Malan'tai is another example- just reading through the rulebook with the mindset of a logic class, the only conclusion is that 'Spirit Leech' does effect embarked units. No need to FAQ.

Q. Can an Independent Character who has taken
Fenrisian Wolves as wargear join another unit as
if he were on his own?
A. Yes – in fact you could potentially have a unit
that included several Independent Characters, all
of whom have Fenrisian Wolves, though each set
of Fenrisian Wolves must still remain within 2" of
their Independent Character master.

Why is this in the FAQ? It says in the Codex that the Wolves are Wargear-- 99% of the time, it is because people confuse rules and want a FAQ. If people just read through their 40k rulebook before they went to the Tournament, most of these issues would NEVER come up.



As I said earlier: If a single tournament wants to change rules because they are trying to balance out their own created Scenarios, that's awesome. BUT to use some blanket FAQ by a third party for all tournaments makes no sense.

If you read the new Tyranid codex and the Rulebook, there are not any confusing rules- Nothing needs to be FAQed. There might be an errata, but when GW produces a FAQ, I bet the FAQ will be exactly how the rules read in the 40k rulebook already.

This is what really makes me laugh all the time- the FAQs that GW release never 'solve' any problems, because there were not any problems in the first place.

[Shavnir]

The problem isn't the rulebook, it is the people reading the rulebook

Take the deathrolla. Ram is a subset rule of Tank Shock. It stops following the Tank Shock rules when it gets closer than 1" away from a tank. Since it is no longer following the rules for Tank Shock, the Deathrolla doesn't work. This is all from reading the rulebook with a 'logic' based format, which is how EVERYONE should be reading the rules. It isn't rocket science, and the rule is quite clear. You should check out the BOLS deathrolla space wolves fight thread: I got schooled in the logic, and when I re-read the book, it made perfect sense that the Deathrolla doesn't work.

That assumes literacy. As a few other threads in this forum have proven, that assumption may be a bit much.


As for Transport and falling back- there are other threads that completely walk through the rules logically.

You do not need some 100 page FAQ that DOES NOT FOLLOW the 40k rulebook. That's what the INAT does. It is dumb.

Until you can guarantee that the TO has read through all the various rules debates (and they are always debates) and guarantee that he picks the correct answer it is much preferable to have a document (however flawed it may be) to use as a baseline of "this is how INAT 40k works". Yes its not "pure" 40k but "pure" 40k has so many people playing it so many different ways that in the end I would much rather just have a standardized book, even if it doesn't follow the 40k rulebook.



Doom of Malan'tai is another example- just reading through the rulebook with the mindset of a logic class, the only conclusion is that 'Spirit Leech' does effect embarked units. No need to FAQ.

Obvious but still a 300+ reply flame fest of empty accusations of powergaming :p Basically we need FAQs because people are dumb.


As I said earlier: If a single tournament wants to change rules because they are trying to balance out their own created Scenarios, that's awesome. BUT to use some blanket FAQ by a third party for all tournaments makes no sense.

I've had TOs quote rules (not in 40k but fantasy) that are directly opposite what it says in the rulebook reliably in a manner to screw me over before. I would much rather have a blanket FAQ than leave anything up to interpretation (unnecessary interpretation as it may be).


the FAQs that GW release never 'solve' any problems, because there were not any problems in the first place.

Except of course that time they said furious assault and counter-attack worked together right? ;)

[Tynskel]

That very last one, GW fixed- it was up for a day or two. People complain about GW not being fast to fix their mistakes: this was quick! The other FAQ's are 'slow' because the rules being FAQ are not 'fixed' by the FAQ- these rules are fine.

All your other points basically agree with mine: They don't need to produce FAQs- People misread the 40k Rulebook and Codexes. This does not mean there needs to be a FAQ. This just means that people need to read the rules. :)

Most of these forums where there are 'debates' are not real debates. They are like Politics: noise machines (or maybe noise marines). They have no substance- the only substance is what the 40k rulebook actually states. Someone who doesn't take the time to read the rulebook first, reads a forum to get a flawed answer, is no cause for a FAQ.

I stand by my statement. If you produce a FAQ for your Local Tournament because you have your own designed rules for your scenarios, that makes sense. But, to have an 'independent council' produce a FAQ for all events is a joke. Just like Toyota hiring the firm from California (the same firm that the Tobacco Industry hired that 'proved' second hand smoke causes no problems) to cover up your NUMEROUS recalls, is a joke.

[Fellend]

Good God noooo! Sweden has an unofficial official faq. It's really horrible, some nerds (well...they play warhammer so that's kind of a given) sat down together and decided THIS is the way WE want the game and everyone else had to follow suit.

Soon you'll get KOMP stats as well. Silly rules saying that yes if you take more than one of any good unit you'll get minus points on tournaments. But don't worry if you take the crappiest units you get bonus points!
(It's actually possible to win tournaments by having so crappy units in your army that even if you lose you get more bonus points than your opponent gets points for winning)

Say no to unofficial faqs. Pressure GW instead!

[BuFFo]

Good God noooo! Sweden has an unofficial official faq. It's really horrible, some nerds (well...they play warhammer so that's kind of a given) sat down together and decided THIS is the way WE want the game and everyone else had to follow suit.

Shocker coming up.... How do you think the FAQs on the GW site are created?

If you play by "GW's" FAQs, you are playing rule made up by a bunch of nerds who sat down and decided THIS is the way WE want the game and everyone else to follow suit...


Say no to unofficial faqs. Pressure GW instead!

Pro Tip #4574: All FAQs are unofficial.

Film at 11.

[Tynskel]

Shocker coming up.... How do you think the FAQs on the GW site are created?

If you play by "GW's" FAQs, you are playing rule made up by a bunch of nerds who sat down and decided THIS is the way WE want the game and everyone else to follow suit...



Pro Tip #4574: All FAQs are unofficial.

Film at 11.

However, the nerds that sat down for the GW FAQ didn't decide 'THIS' is the way, they just repeat the rulebook. They usually didn't change anything about how the rules worked. This is why I do not like the INAT FAQ- their rulings on some rules specifically go against the logic of the 40k Rulebook. I, for one, will never play at a tournament with the INAT FAQ rules. Nor will I play pick up games with INAT rules.

[BuFFo]

However, the nerds that sat down for the GW FAQ didn't decide 'THIS' is the way, they just repeat the rulebook.

I see your point, but, this isn't what I said, nor what the person to whom I was responding to said.

He, like many people, assumes the FAQs on GW's site are 'entirely' made by GW employees. This is simply not the case. Maybe a question here and there, but that would be about it.

He wants a FAQ made by GW to be the world wide standard, but he needs to learn that this probably will never happen, if not just for the fact that FAQs, by there very definition, can never be official.


They usually didn't change anything about how the rules worked.

I don't know if I am understanding you, but many FAQs DO change how the rules work. You may or may not be aware of this.


This is why I do not like the INAT FAQ- their rulings on some rules specifically go against the logic of the 40k Rulebook.

I agree with you that the INAT FAQ is a pile, but, how you can you possible know any 'logic' from the rule book. Did you write it? I am not attacking you, but this comes down to the old idea of 'knowing' what the author was thinking when he wrote the book. We simple don't.


I, for one, will never play at a tournament with the INAT FAQ rules. Nor will I play pick up games with INAT rules.

I fully agree with you again.