PDA

View Full Version : Warseer Comprehensive 40K FAQ Project



Meriwether
30-03-2009, 03:09
With the release of the new INAT FAQ for Adepticon, it has lit a fire under some of us to try to do something a bit more broad in both scope and purpose.

I would like to invite all interested Warseer members to join a project. The purpose of this project would be to review the INAT FAQ for two reasons:

1. The first reason is to provide John "Yakface" Regul and the INAT Ruling Council feedback on the document -- questions we feel were omitted, answers we feel are in error, etc.-- in the hopes that these revisions make it into the next revision. This reason is the lesser of the two.

2. The more important reason is to create a more comprehensive document. Ideally, this document would incorporate new questions, including those questions addressed in the GW FAQs (which the Adepticon FAQ deliberately omits), as well as brief explanations for every [clarification] and [rules change] included in the FAQ. For the [rules change] questions, I personally would like to see an explanation of the actual RaW, as well as a justification for the change (like terminators not getting terminator armor in the old C:SM, or whatever silly RaW).

To be clear, I have no desire to step on John's toes, and no desire to try to assert some kind of primacy of Warseer over Dakka Dakka (or vice versa). It is important to note that they did a huge amount of work on the INAT FAQ, and it is an impressive document. It is also their 'baby', and it should be quite obvious to everyone that when it comes to the INAT FAQ, they have the final word in every way. We would be giving feedback in the spirit of friendship, and that is all.

As to the 'more comprehensive document' (which will, among other things, need a better name), I would like to emphasize one point above all others: It is significantly more important that we have a document that we can all live with, and can all sign on to, than it is to have a document that agrees with our particular point of view 100%. Compromise, it has been said, is the art of making sure that everyone walks away equally unhappy. We're not all going to get our way all the time. I'm not heading up this project to make sure that I get my way, either. As we would be starting this project by stealing rather directly from the INAT Council, I would be perfectly fine with turning over the 'more comprehensive document' project to them, if they wanted the credit and the headache!

Ideally, what I would like to see is a document that all websites dedicated to 40K (Warseer, Dakka, Librarium, BoLS, and whatever others are out there), and any other not-primarily-online 40K communities, could have input into and can adopt for their own usage. It would be really, really nice if we could create a document so wonderful and so agreeable that it is even adopted for GTs, and perhaps even adopted by GW itself (LOL. I know, I know. I kid, I kid. But I kind of don't...)

This will take some work. We would need people to read and analyze the INAT FAQ. We would need people to scour the Warseer 40K Rules forum for new questions to add. We would need people to discuss -- civilly, collaboratively, and constructively -- these questions towards a common understanding of what is RaW, what is RaI, and what category the eventually agreed-upon answer will fit in (RaW, clarification, rules change, or typo). We will need people who are "cross enrolled" in other sites -- Dakka, Librarium, BoLS, and whatever sites are out there -- to ask them to join in the effort.

I envision a common document, a well-agreed-upon, universally-accepted FAQ. I am realistic enough to know that this would not happen easily. To that end, I propose that we allow -- but only where deemed absolutely necessary -- 'dissents' to the rules in the FAQ. So, for example, a rule would read:

RB.XX.01 – Q: Blah blah question yadda yadda?
A1: Blah blah Most Agreed Upon Answer yadda yadda.[clarification].
A2: Blah blah Warseer Dissent yadda yadda. [clarification - Warseer dissent].

My general feeling in this regard is that a comprehensive document that we can all mostly agree upon *without* dissents is more important than making sure that 'our view' is always agreed to... ...but given how good we are at disagreeing with one another, I expect that this might be a bit of a pipe dream. On the other hand, I was part of the Warseer FAQ process for both Orks and Chaos Space Marines, and overall it was really very agreeable, even when we were disagreeing. I don't know whether we want to give one person a final say, vote on a triad or council who has final say, or make it a true democracy on a question-by-question basis (with only those who are actually contributing to the project voting, or in general polls?), or what... I guess that depends on what you all want!

So, folks, that's the idea. Join today! Your Imperium needs you!

Meri

SPYDER68
30-03-2009, 03:25
Sounds fun.

As for the ones there is general arguements..

Like 2x lash Sorcs in the same squad example...

Easiest way imo would be state to just 4+ roll or/ discuss it with your opponet/ tourney organizer before hand.

but then again.. that doesnt gain much :P

either way.. sounds intresting to try / something to do.

ehlijen
30-03-2009, 03:52
I'll try to help.

One thing: It might be handy if you actually linked to that particular faq in your post. I think I've read bits of the one you mean, but I'm not sure it is the one you mean.

Vaktathi
30-03-2009, 03:54
I'd love to help on something like this. There's things that pop up with every codex and every rules change that should be addressed that often aren't.

DoctorTom
30-03-2009, 04:10
It's definitely a worthwhile thing to do. I'd be willing to help.

Ianos
30-03-2009, 05:30
Sure, why not? i 'm in...

Azzy
30-03-2009, 06:18
Count me in, I'd love to see this come to fruition.

Kloud13
30-03-2009, 06:31
Although I might be misunderstood sometimes, as I tend to think, as I type, I do believe I would be interested in assisting in this endeavor.

Just as something to Start with.

1st thing that need to be done, is to Identify which Rules, Special Situations, ect, Need to be FAQed, or Errattad (is that a word?)

Alot of the rule questions brought up in the Rules Thread are easily resolved, but others evolve (or devolve) into Pages upon Pages of Debates (sometimes heated) and quotes from Rulebooks. And those are the things we would work on.

2nd, once we have our little Snag, We need to break it down. Is it a case where the rules could have been more clear? or is it a 3rd edition Rule from an old Codex not quite fitting in the 5th Edition Ruleset? Who gains an advantage/disadvantage? Is it Fair to both Players? Does it Make Sense Fluffwise/Gamewise?

3rd Individually come up with our own Clarifications/Adjustments/Alternatives. Whatever seems most appropriate. Then we need to respectfully consider each others views. and offer constructive Critisism. Playtest them, Try each others Ideas, and Roll some actual dice. Come back with Results, and Remarks on the Impact of the overall game, and the players feelings on the results. Like did you or your opponent feel Cheated, or whatever.

4th Maybe Run a Couple Polls. You feel current Rule is Clear? Is Current Rule satisfactory? You believe Rule work this way, or that way? You feel it should work this way or that way? The Rule is in Harmony with playing an enjoyable game?

5th We Present our findings to...... A council/ judges/ The guys doing the current IND FAQ (This would be best I think, as GW does seem to Cut and Paste from these guys anyway.)

From there we see how it goes.

Well, I hope my input there helps get this off the ground.

Azzy
30-03-2009, 07:02
I definitely think we should a couple basic ground rules and requirements for participating and discussing the rules:

1. Read the Rules: Read the rulebook and the codex in question before providing your opinion, and be ready to give page references. Don't just go off memory or what someone else says.

2. Understand How the 40K Rules Work. The rules are written to give the basic rule that apply to everything. If something works differently from these basic rules, the rulebook will specifically note the exception and how the rules are modified.

Also, the rules tell you what you can do. If it's not in the basic rules, and not called out specifically as an exception for the unit/weapon/etc. in question, then you can't do it.

3. Don't Be a Jerk: Just because you disagree with someone doesn't give you the right to act like a **** or be condescending (even if the other person is obviously in error). If you're going to criticize, criticize a person's argument or position NOT the person. Remember that we're all in this for the betterment of the hobby, and we're all wrong sometimes.

Bunnahabhain
30-03-2009, 07:45
Good idea. I'll help.
I agree with the proposed format of:
Question,
Answer,
significant dissent/disagreement, if relevant,

with page references.

It makes the logic and background for decisions clear.

Kurisu313
30-03-2009, 08:24
I'd certainly be interested in helping.

Deetwo
30-03-2009, 08:44
Definitely willing to try and help :)

Killmaimburn
30-03-2009, 09:09
It might be handy if you actually linked to that particular faq in your post.
http://www.adepticon.org/files/INATFAQv2.2.pdf
The old warseer one is in my sig.
Here (http://warhammerworld.typepad.com/warhammer_world_news/2008/11/a-change-in-house-rules-policy.html#more) is the instructions on how the GT FAQ is maintained.
Here (http://warhammerworld.typepad.com/files/microsoft-word---40k_gt_house-rules-grand-finals-ddv1.1-11.02.09.pdf) is the GT final houserules pack for the year that just finished.

If you want anything more obtuse..I can probably track it down. (e.g. if a dev bloke posted on a topic.. if chapter approved 03/old errata backed up a certain mode of thought)
I'm more useful as a neighsayer who knows when to stop :)

Have we heard anything more back from the INAT folks?(issues outstanding (http://warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3416677&postcount=43) etc)
has anyone put their hands up to represent for other forums..Jwolf et al? What forums are currently represented?

IAMNOTHERE
30-03-2009, 09:33
This sounds like a worthy project, subscribed.

IJW
30-03-2009, 12:00
Sounds like a very good idea, count me in.

Might this be better done via a wiki-style approach? As long as it's easy to then generate PDFs for the different sections...

ehlijen
30-03-2009, 12:23
Thanks, Killmaimburn.

IAMNOTHERE
30-03-2009, 12:49
So apart from starting with the INTAFAQ and deconstructing it a line at a time, will there be a directed focus?

I.e. This week we'll be concentrating on section X of the BRB.

Meriwether
30-03-2009, 14:07
The plan is to have a directed focus, yes. ...insofar as there _is_ a plan.

If I were a smarter fellow, I would have waited a few weeks to post this, as I am getting ready to take my robotics team on a 1500-mile road trip to the National Competition in 2.5 weeks...

Killmaimburn, thank you for posting the link. I was going to do so in my original post, but for some reason the DakkaDakka *and* Adepticon links were '504 not found' last night.

What I really hope to do is split this off from a single thread into a 'group', where we can have relatively-easily organized sub-threads as we spin off onto different issues and different topics -- especially if only the "group leaders" can create threads to keep things as organized as possible, and we can make threads "Sticky" as needed, and so forth... Much like the Warseer FAQ groups that were run by mattjgilbert. I just need to ask him how that was set up, and through whom, so we can do something similar.

Gotta do actual work now. More later.

Meri

SPYDER68
30-03-2009, 14:21
We could easily wait a few weeks for you to start this meriwether, it will give time for things to be set up, new guard codex to be here / very close to here etc.

I forum directed at this would be great / best way to do it.

Meriwether
30-03-2009, 15:06
Right-o. Killmaimburn sent a message to the Help Desk to see if a mini forum (like what used to exist for the FAQs) can be set up here. If not, I'll set up one off-site just for this specific purpose.

I'll keep you all informed, but don't expect too much action for a while. In the mean time, y'all can read that INAT FAQ, the official GW FAQs, and whatever else you can get your hands on so that we can be 'armed and ready' once whatever communication device (forum here or elsewhere) is set up.

Meri

don_mondo
30-03-2009, 15:08
Reporting for duty.

Coredump
30-03-2009, 15:09
Ideally, what I would like to see is a document that all websites dedicated to 40K (Warseer, Dakka, Librarium, BoLS, and whatever others are out there), and any other not-primarily-online 40K communities, could have input into and can adopt for their own usage.
I may put that in my sig file.


To me, it is *more* important that warseer and Dakka documents can be the exact same, than I get 'my way' on a question.
To me, it is *more* important to develop a document that can be as widely accepted as possible, rather than have it 'right' by my standard.

To that end, I would suggest that when we review the INAT document, the question to be asked is "Can we live with this?". We can still offer our suggestions, and they may still be willing to change it; but the effectiveness of the documents will lose a lot if they don't agree.
While I am not on the council, (opinion Marius?) it is my impression that they would also find a matching document as beneficial to the hobby, and may be willing to make INAT changes to accomplish that. At least on those topics where they are already split on the council.



As for logistics here.... I would suggest that Meri be given Moderator privledges in this 'group' area; or that a moderator agrees to help. The benefit is being able to keep the threads on topic, and have posts weeded out(deleted) that are not helpful to the topic at hand.

Meriwether
30-03-2009, 15:32
To me, it is *more* important that warseer and Dakka documents can be the exact same, than I get 'my way' on a question.
To me, it is *more* important to develop a document that can be as widely accepted as possible, rather than have it 'right' by my standard.

I agree with this sufficiently strongly that it would not be an overstatement to say that, in the interest of having a commonly-agreed-upon document, I wouldn't at all mind if we were simply some kind of 'Warseer Advisory Group' to the INAT Council.

I haven't taken a good enough look at the document yet to know if I can live with it 100%... I did pick out a few things that made me strongly raise an eyebrow, and they will need further study/deliberation IMO... But in the long run, as long as we are actually listened to and our concerns legitimately heard and either acted upon or deliberately discounted for good reason, I would have no problem with putting our 'rubber stamp' on what came out of the process, regardless of my personal feelings about any given ruling.

Of course, one issue with this is that I -- and I don't think any of you -- don't actually have any authority to put Warseer's stamp of approval on anything. I think that would have to come from Brimstone. It is my hope that we'll create (and/or help revise) a document of sufficient quality that he is willing, able, and happy to do that.

The next step -- and oh boy aren't I getting ahead of myself now -- would be to actively sell it (not for actual money, I mean figuratively) to tournaments and LGSes... And maybe even petition GW to consider adopting it as official.

Meri

Ianos
30-03-2009, 16:20
The next step -- and oh boy aren't I getting ahead of myself now -- would be to actively sell it (not for actual money, I mean figuratively) to tournaments and LGSes... And maybe even petition GW to consider adopting it as official.

From your mouth to their ear brother!

Is it just me or is there a very positive wave of change in the hobby? GW is streamlining, 5th rocks, "cheese" is less of a concern and people are more positive, and now we might actually lend a hand to the company...

This is really, so uplifting!

Eldanar
30-03-2009, 16:38
I'll be glad to help out in any way that I can.

eriochrome
30-03-2009, 17:17
I also volunteer my pathetic skills to the cause. Given how many players never actually read and understand the basic rulebook, I fear that this effort is the like preaching to the choir but I am all for a single unified FAQ in both a short form (for easy print out) and a long form with more discussion of why the rule should be played this way.

SPYDER68
30-03-2009, 17:53
An attempt at this with people throu different forum groups would be great..

a Community effort of 40k players to discuss a rule for a clear ruling would be great.. rather then.. On Warseer they say this... but on dakka they think its like this...

noobzilla
30-03-2009, 17:59
I'm game for an attempt like this! :D

Thud
30-03-2009, 18:12
Petty Officer Second Class Thud reporting for duty, Skipper. ;)

Coredump
30-03-2009, 18:23
Something else to consider.

The INAT FAQ is not the "dakka dakka FAQ"

It is the creation of relatively few people. Most of them are active on Dakka, and the discussions there (and elsewhere) are definitely used to gather input; but the final decisions come down to (5? 8? ??) people. Our attempt to create a similar one with 'everyone's' input, is a bit more problematic.

If we are all able to keep our goal in mind (a FAQ we can live with) instead of (MY FAQ), then it is still a doable proposition.

SPYDER68
30-03-2009, 18:44
I know i for one dont care if a rule is in my favor or not. i just want a game played correctly..

Will it be hard with to many people ? yes, Very much so, it will end up in a endless argument on some threads.

Meriwether
30-03-2009, 18:48
It is the creation of relatively few people. Most of them are active on Dakka, and the discussions there (and elsewhere) are definitely used to gather input; but the final decisions come down to (5? 8? ??) people. Our attempt to create a similar one with 'everyone's' input, is a bit more problematic.

If we are all able to keep our goal in mind (a FAQ we can live with) instead of (MY FAQ), then it is still a doable proposition.

I think so, too. (Obviously, or I wouldn't have gotten the ball rolling on this).

It does beg the question of how we determine what is and is not a good answer when consensus isn't happening -- especially when we (rather inevitably) get to groups of entrenched opinions... Do we annoint a final-say autocrat? Do we set up a group of "they did most of the work so they get the final say" plutocracy? Do we set up a purely democratic, every-vote-counts-once sort of aristocracy where only contributors vote on the tough issues? Do we take the tough issues to the community as a whole, that is, poll Warseer general and let the plebs decide? I have my own preferences on this, but I'll keep them to myself for the time being. What say the rest of you?

Let me inform the issue with this: The Warseer FAQ process was so pleasant it was shocking. People were very clearly working together towards a common goal, as opposed to just bickering in order to 'win' the argument, and the petty, snide nastiness you sometimes encounter in the 40K Rules Forums were essentially non-existent, even during some very heated arguments. I think something that will help a lot is that, while we are very clearly trying to determine RaW, we also have the [clarification], [rules change] and [typo] reasons to fall back on... Not that I want to see us handwave and do away with RaW in most respects or most instances, mind -- but it means we do not have to be _slaves_ to it. This will free up people who disagree with a particular rule's operation to say, "Yes, that's RaW, but is it really RaI?"

Meri

Azzy
30-03-2009, 20:02
I think so, too. (Obviously, or I wouldn't have gotten the ball rolling on this).

It does beg the question of how we determine what is and is not a good answer when consensus isn't happening -- especially when we (rather inevitably) get to groups of entrenched opinions... Do we annoint a final-say autocrat? Do we set up a group of "they did most of the work so they get the final say" plutocracy? Do we set up a purely democratic, every-vote-counts-once sort of aristocracy where only contributors vote on the tough issues? Do we take the tough issues to the community as a whole, that is, poll Warseer general and let the plebs decide? I have my own preferences on this, but I'll keep them to myself for the time being. What say the rest of you?

I'd prefer to be democratic, let issues be put to a vote amongst the FAQ group's entire membership with a 2/3 majority to determining the outcome. If such a majority cannot be gained amongst the members, default to an open vote amongst rest of the Warseer community.


Let me inform the issue with this: The Warseer FAQ process was so pleasant it was shocking. People were very clearly working together towards a common goal, as opposed to just bickering in order to 'win' the argument, and the petty, snide nastiness you sometimes encounter in the 40K Rules Forums were essentially non-existent, even during some very heated arguments. I think something that will help a lot is that, while we are very clearly trying to determine RaW, we also have the [clarification], [rules change] and [typo] reasons to fall back on... Not that I want to see us handwave and do away with RaW in most respects or most instances, mind -- but it means we do not have to be _slaves_ to it. This will free up people who disagree with a particular rule's operation to say, "Yes, that's RaW, but is it really RaI?"

I think that is for the best. Let us not be 40K Pharasees, but try to understand and go with the intent of the rule when possible.

SPYDER68
30-03-2009, 20:09
The discussion between RAW and RAI is more so as..

Is the RAW clear ? as in.. just misunderstood alot ?

For example Brood Lord not getting fleet..

Or is it.. 2x lash sorcs in same squad lashing same target ?

I see the best way is to have a group of people that want to commit the time to it to help, and then they are the ones that finalize it.

As for the general discussion of the rule.. that should be open.

To me should go in this order.

Subject in transition is brought up as a topic thread.


After discussion. a Poll to see where people stand after the discussion.

If poll is close.. Continue discussion and re-poll.

After a satisfactory amount agrees one way.

It goes into final stage and a select group gives their openion on it together wether it is crossing what RAW really is.

mchmr6677
30-03-2009, 20:54
I would like help as well.

cruise
30-03-2009, 21:49
May I suggest documented playtests as useful determining ruling selections?

While it might not help in all situations, it could act as a useful tie-breaker...

An example from the rules forum is the recent "can pile-in moves break coherency" debate. While the rules debate went on, at two people pointed out they'd tried it, and it was a very bad idea to do so anyway. If an agreement hadn't been reached, saying, "well, we don't know, but it's a disadvantage anyway, so we'll allow it" could be handy...

Oh, and obviously count me in on the project too.

Trekari
31-03-2009, 02:11
I believe the INAT committee was made up of 9 people.

I think it's important to NOT have one person making the final decision.

I think the INAT document is a perfect starting point, however there are some decisions within that document that are so blatantly wrong as to almost nauseate me when I read them.

The ultimate goal of any 'community' document rules clarifications should be to have GW take notice and actually do THEIR jobs better. It shouldn't be left up to the motivated players to create answers to rules questions when the rules simply could've been written better (or FAQs actually updated with IMPORTANT questions instead of the slag they get filled with), both of which are faults of GW.

holmcross
31-03-2009, 03:26
I'd be happy to help, if you still need people.

Marius Xerxes
31-03-2009, 03:27
I like to start off that while I was on the INAT council, I only ever speak for myself and not the council as a whole when I discuss anything in this forum.

The idea that anything in the INAT is "blatently wrong" is subject to personal opinion only. On the council we have a pretty even split of people who go by RAW and those who lean to RAI in those oddly worded and unclear situations. The funniest part of that is that in a lot of situations like that, a lot of RAW minded individuals tend to think it is totally clear and evident. However, I think it is better when someone is able to see and feel that they have the RAW on their side, but can also see that it can be interpreted in other ways. Because lets face it.. if the RAW was that clear, there would be no pages long of arguments in forums and other sources of discussion.

And sorry for the late response to all this. Been afk for a few days (stuck playing WAR). If anyone want's premission to use the INAT beyond its disclaimer to do so, I would ask Yakface. While there are the list of us who make up the council, he is the one who takes all the time to write it up and collect all the answer's etc.

As for who mentioned how the council can go by RAI because we dont have to worry about RAW.. thats a bit oversimplified. While yes, as a council we can go with what we feel.. we do also take votes when its not a clear majority. So for example only, you can have 3 people saying this is the RAW.. but it only take's 4 to say they dont agree and then bam.. answer for the INAT goes with what the 4 people felt because they had the majority (assuming 7 total people were voting).

The real issue you have when making a group like this is that you have to limit its size. You get to many people going you wont ever stop the debate. I cant even tell you how much of a headache it is when for example, myself and another member of the council were in our LGS (Yes 2 of us are actually in the same town. The rest are all over the US). When I recieved and E-Mail on my phone detailing a new issue I read it aloud to my fellow council member. Before you know it you have everyone withing earshot asking what it was.. how we felt the way we did etc. While this is all fine and good, and we happily explained our thoughts on the matter.. having to make sure that, that many people understand the situation, the question, and then your response is very time consuming. A place like the forums, however, gives you ample time to read the situation, read the question and then peoples thoughts on the matter. Basically when you get the group together who is the "voting party" they should all already have a grasp of the above.. with a little bit of time for either side to explain the finer detials and disscuss them.

When you finially get to the point as a group of "X" number of people who will make the decisions you have to keep the following in mind. When both sides get to the point of repeating themselves, (as you see happens all to often when two sides can't agree on the forums) you have to have a moderator of sorts to be willing to see and say "ok both sides have said what they can, its time to vote and move on". Otherwise you end up with, as happens in the forums, a conversation about a single topic in which no new evidence is being provided for either case and has used up the past 2 pages worth of posts (2 hours of telephone conversation) etc.

Finallly, when a decision is made that you get out voted on, dont go around making issue of it to anyone who will listen. If your going to take the tremendous task of trying to come up with a set of rulings for the benifit of all in the game who choose to use them (remember this whole task is well beyond anyone as an individual int he group), you have to stand as a single united entity. Even when you dont agree with the final ruling, you stand by it until it gets changed, if it gets changed. Thats just how a voting process works. You will lose, it might taste bad.. but you stand together in the end.

The reasons for standing together you will find at the point you release your FAQ to the public. The inevitable dissenting and total rejection of some of your long hours of work. Only as a group is it possible to weather the storm, and applause, for putting something together like a independent game wide (including Forgeworld) FAQ for nothing but the benifit of those who choose to use it.

Meriwether
31-03-2009, 03:49
Thanks for your attention and input, Marius. Consider it well-considered. I'll get to a more reasonable and thorough reply when it isn't midnight local time, and I am not so sleepy. :D

Meri

Vaktathi
31-03-2009, 03:53
The idea that anything in the INAT is "blatently wrong" is subject to personal opinion only. well, to be fair, there are a fair number of rulings they deem "clarifications" that are in fact rules changes (such as allowing units that would otherwise be trapped and destroyed by terrain and other units to double-back around them) and other such things.

Coredump
31-03-2009, 05:12
Except, it it *isn't* a rule change, depending on how you define 'double back'.

Now, I want to clarify, that I would have ruled differently than the INAT FAQ did.

But their logic was sound; by taking a stricter definition of 'double back'.
They took it that you were only doubling back, if you did so in the same fall back movement.
You are assuming that 'double back' should have a broader reading. And while I agree, it is not the *only* way it can be read.

Vaktathi
31-03-2009, 05:34
Mmm...I guess so, that never occured to me, it's a mighty strict interpretation of double-back though, especially as any unit in that situation is unlikely to ever regroup if enemy units are close enough for that.

Used Car Salesman
31-03-2009, 05:57
I would love to help with this, if at all possible.
As for my opinion on how we should proceed with this, here are my ideas.
The U.S Supreme Court has a very similar situation, actually with having to interpret a set of core rules and make decisions based on that. Anyways, so I think that rules decisions should be made with this process.
Step 1-Is the writer's intent clear in this case? If not then...
Step 2-Can the team make a decision based on common sense? if not then..
Step 3-Is there a precedent for a similar situation in previous rulesets/faqs?
Anyways, I may be just talking nonsense here but take it as you will.

Killmaimburn
31-03-2009, 08:23
It is the creation of relatively few people. Our attempt to create a similar one with 'everyone's' input, is a bit more problematic. With the previous faq set there was a high drop out rate.. especially once people started really picking things apart and doing the time consuming leg work. If you get 20 names, expect 16 to be there at the start (2 will get lost, 2 will suddenly remember they have work on X ) At the end of one of the warseer (smaller) faqs it was just 4 of us left battling on the big bits despite initial enthusiasm. A key part of meri's planning needs to be retention/recruitment... maybe he could offer us free punch and pie.;)

I'm going to be fairly variable (2 kids under 5) but I'll still be there at the end.(if you want)

isaac
31-03-2009, 08:32
With the previous faq set there was a high drop out rate.. especially once people started really picking things apart and doing the time consuming leg work. If you get 20 names, expect 16 to be there at the start (2 will get lost, 2 will suddenly remember they have work on X ) At the end of one of the warseer (smaller) faqs it was just 4 of us left battling on the big bits despite initial enthusiasm. A key part of meri's planning needs to be retention/recruitment... maybe he could offer us free punch and pie.;)

I'm going to be fairly variable (2 kids under 5) but I'll still be there at the end.(if you want)

Something like a custom title or something similar would be a nice retention bonus.

jubilex
31-03-2009, 08:42
The most sense so far has come from lost carcosa.

If you go back to the way mattj organised things as a template (which I think Merri favours)...

There is one boss, who has final say over everything, though is more of a beneficient dictator than a raving loony.
Matts qualities are that he knows what he is talking about, is open-minded, willing to accept being proved wrong and organised.
I think Merri fits that mould.

Persue "x" ammounts of projects.
There is a project leader for each with nominal control.
There are a limited number of volunteers attached to each project.
Try to vet them a little, drop-out rate will be high.

The entire purpose is to determine RAW.
Can we figure it out?
Ok, apply precedent.
What about RAI/GAP?
Is it necessary to compromise somewhere?

Answer (in order of preference), RAW (quote p???), CLARIFICATION (quote p???), RAI (REF?), GAP.

The least of these used, the better, imo.

As far as democracy is concerned, it's best avoided (in the way that most organisations that actually want to achieve do).

In the last round of faq's, when the group had reached a bit of an impasse, we sometimes would send out problematic stuff into the open forums for a vote.

Some of these (as I recall), were pretty much just votes, with relatively little actual imput, while some others (notably the super-duper top-secret NONSENSE that gets thrown up, like the simul lash one*) generated debate.

On reading why people voted in the way they did, it became clear that a lot of voters hadn't really understood the arguments/had made snap decisions without recourse to their books and so, for me at least, we ended up with popular opinion based on crap.

Democracy is about as infallible as the pope.

*Don't you wish, sometimes you could un-invent the a-bomb?

Eulenspiegel
31-03-2009, 09:02
I have participated in our old Codex: Orks FAQ, and I´d like to help on this project, too.

jubilex
31-03-2009, 11:16
Here is a version of the gw gt faq, that I have reformatted into the same structure as the inatfaq.
Hope it's handy.

Meriwether
31-03-2009, 14:09
Nice! Thanks for the link, jubilex.

And thanks for the input, everyone.

I'm *certain* that I will not be able to please everyone, even with how decisions are made about how decisions are made. That's part of the nature of working with those sticky, nasty, strange things we call 'people'. I am confident, however, that we can figure out something that at least most people -- or at least most reasonable people -- can sign on to. I welcome all input on structure for this project.

It looks like the old mini-forums haven't been available for a while (thanks KMB for running the leg-work on that one). That means I'm going to have to set up a forum on another site. I'll probably go with an iforum somewhere -- give me a bit to get it sorted, organized, and broken down into happy chunks of goodness.

My life priorities at the moment are:
1. Getting all ducks properly rowed for Robotics Nationals April 15-20. (AAaaaagh!)
2. Finishing 4th Draft of Novel before Nationals. (Almost done!)
3. Actually working/teaching (Esp. prep for the AP exam May 11)
4. Making sure my bees are productive and happy (Ongoing but mostly self-managing).
5. Getting this project 100% set up.
6. Spending at least a little time with my wife.

I can multitask, but only so well. It'll be somewhere between one to three weeks before things are set up, properly organized (I think!), and ready for the real work to begin.

Meri

Nexus Trimean
31-03-2009, 15:15
I will be happy to help. Let me know what i can do.

Oh, and good luck at nationals from the former president of Team 1633.

Meriwether
31-03-2009, 15:29
Oh, and good luck at nationals from the former president of Team 1633.

Sweet! Another FIRSTer... This is our first year at nationals -- I'm shooting for "not humilating ourselves", but hoping for something more. :D

Meri

njfed
31-03-2009, 17:32
*Takes shoe and sock off right foot*
*Opens mouth as wide as possible*

I'm ready to humiliate myself in any way possible for this cause!

Have you considered using a wiki as a way to track the document? Wikis work great for organizing stuff like this. I'm not talking about letting any one edit anything. Just as a way to present the document so it can be searched and tracked. Each 'page' would list a rule question with arguments for different options, a status of the rule question and a place for comments.

Meriwether
31-03-2009, 18:50
I have not, but only because I have never used a wiki... I'll look in to it as I am exploring the options of forums and presentation. Thanks for the suggestion!

Meri

oldgamer56
31-03-2009, 19:07
It occurs to me that while I would like to see this happen, baby steps need to be used initially or this could get out of hand quickly.

Since we are talking about a hobby wide effort, it seems to me that the directing body must include people form all the different forums/associations to preclude lack of acceptance. I would think that the way the founders worked on the constitution would serve as a decent model.

Small subcommittees to work on discreet pieces and to draft their sections, maybe some working codex, some BRB.

Where there is a significant disagreement, the subcommittee should put the question out to the population in the form of a poll, with the best for and against arguments laid out clearly and succinctly, with references noted. Most importantly, the polling should cover all the participating forums and use the same arguments/form to prevent any misunderstandings between forums, as the goal is a unified document. The subcommittee could then combine the voting to determine what the people want. Simple majority wins. Losers can refine their arguments and try to whip up more support for the next revision, which should be at least annually.

I would also like to see an effort in making some sort of matrix showing how various wargear/abilities interact with other various wargear/abilities. example is Necron living metal vs different weapons/abilities.

Finally, are we going to ask for GW blessing or participation?

mattjgilbert
31-03-2009, 22:04
Much like the Warseer FAQ groups that were run by mattjgilbert. I just need to ask him how that was set up, and through whom, so we can do something similar.I think it was Sylass who set up the forum in the experimental groups section for us. Wintermute then helped publish the FAQs and post announcements. Nick and the other admins/mods were thinking about what to do long term but there were some questions about granting admin/mod rights (for me) to restricted forums and whether the current (at the time) version of the forum code would allow it. That may well be different now so you'll have to enquire.

We tried both ways before - an offsite forum we set-up so non-Warseer members could participate and then the Warseer dedicated group. Both suffered from people dropping off and the groups basically boiled down to a small core and ultimately petered out because I didn't have the time to continue to drive it (and no one else took up the challenge at the time). That's not a whine, I'm just stating what happened as a “warning” :) Now you've taken up the baton Meri I hope you find the time to see it through as it does take a lot to coordinate and manage. I'll help if and when I can. Just let me know what I can do.

If you can get the backing of the forum community as a whole, I think you stand a better chance of maintaining interest and seeing this project survive. An off-site wiki or similar is the best idea but you still need to control the number of people involved or you’ll get bogged down in opinion and circular debate and never come to any conclusions. Perhaps splitting people into groups to tackle specific books with a reviewing group to ratify their output might work. A free-for-all on every question or topic will fail I feel.

Azzy
31-03-2009, 22:10
My life priorities at the moment are:
1. Getting all ducks properly rowed for Robotics Nationals April 15-20. (AAaaaagh!)
2. Finishing 4th Draft of Novel before Nationals. (Almost done!)
3. Actually working/teaching (Esp. prep for the AP exam May 11)
4. Making sure my bees are productive and happy (Ongoing but mostly self-managing).
5. Getting this project 100% set up.
6. Spending at least a little time with my wife.

I can multitask, but only so well. It'll be somewhere between one to three weeks before things are set up, properly organized (I think!), and ready for the real work to begin.

Take your time, Meri, real life comes first.

And remember, with this little project you can always delegate some stuff to other members as needed.

Exterminatus
31-03-2009, 22:15
Real Life? What is that?

OT: I am not interested, thanks for the offer

Used Car Salesman
31-03-2009, 23:09
3. Actually working/teaching (Esp. prep for the AP exam May 11)


Hey I'm taking that test haha. It should be interesting with the 40% being a pass.
On topic though, committees seem like the best option. We could have it work like this. The committee is assigned the question by a group that finds questions and clarifications to answer and then discusses it and comes to a decision. After the decision is made, the committee brings their decision to the entire group for a vote. Of course discussion on this question is limited, as the committee should have discussed it extensively. If this takes too much time or whatever, the committee could just bring their decision to the head of the project for a final decision. My 2 cents there.

sycopat
01-04-2009, 00:50
I'd be interested in something like this, and think it's a good idea, I would like to help out but don't know if I'll have time to realistically contribute... I tend to be consumed by one project at a time, unfortunately to the exclusion of others.

I'd happily volunteer if it hadn't been pointed out that people drifting away from the project was likely to be a problem...

Might I suggest that it is allowed for outsiders/junior volunteers to speak in the forums debates, but not have any real responsibility or involvement in final decision making.(I'll call them "speakers" for the time being)

Speakers can then come and go without major impact on the project, and should places open up in the "circles of power" for whatever reasons, speakers who have been around for a while can be drawn up the ranks...

I haven't been involved in such a project before myself so don't know if it's already been tried that way or not.

Ianos
01-04-2009, 01:57
I am brainstorming here and been getting some ideas.

Well, for starters i think we should combine INAT, GT and GW faq's into one document. During this procedure any conflicts in the rulings should be discussed and streamlined. Further rules may be added until we reach a point where most ambiguities are covered for the time being, especially regarding the core rules.

After this is done i was thinking of a program, maybe in vb to keep things simple, that can be downloaded from all who are interested for input along with the thread.

In the application users will tick the rulings that they accept (or even give it a number mark of acceptance 1-5) and then send a report file to a collector here in the forums.

After a set period of time-reports, statistical results can be posted to show which rules have been widely accepted and which rules are not, using a threshold of preference (e.g. 3+ average is accepted, 3- is not). Then, all rulings that have not been accepted will be revised into a Supreme FAQ that will at the same time try to incorporate recent codex/GW FAQ changes.

While this is done, we must declare our effort across the community and fora so we can get the maximum input regardless of web or earthly locality.

Following the above, we can create a FAQ that can cover all bases, be streamlined, capture the spirit of the game and agree with the majority.

Thoughts?

Marius Xerxes
01-04-2009, 02:27
While the flow of how you at Warseer want to do things is amazing, for the sheer amount of participation you are receiving.. I think some of it is a bit to in depth. I just wan to give my opinon, and hope something helpful can be taken away from it for those who are starting this up.

Its starting to sound like your trying to form a congress with committees and subcommittees and committee chairs etc. Sounds like a lot of peoples involvement. Remember, with or without you (being those making the FAQ) the various forums will do a lot of the debating and issue raising for you. Get familiar with the argument's of both sides using those as tools. Look up all related info to said topic, and look for any precedents. Then when your group gathers, discuss what you know and have found.

So how many people *are* you trying to include in this process? One thing you have to remember that the most important thing about making an FAQ is consistency. How are rulings from one item to the next going to be consistent if you have different groups of minds working on each question, or small set of questions in a vacuum from one another? Sure, you could talk to one another, but is that talking going to be done by entire groups back and fourth? Or is it going to be done by a nominated individual who may not accurately express the opinion of the side they may not agree with? This is especially hard when you have someone who totally believes they have RAW and cannot see the other side. How could they even begin to explain it?

To appoint someone as having finial say is also to much. You are ultimately leaving the choice up to one person's opinion rather then a group vote on a topic. No one person should be more important then any other in the group when it comes to a finial say. Simply because no one person is more creditable then the rest in the group. Always keep in mind a sense of equality among all in the group. You are a team that only requires someone for direction, as ill explain below.

There should be one person who sets the pace and tone. By that I mean they bring up the question at hand and set it for debate within the group. This is simply to keep everyone on the same page and on track with what *single* topic is under discussion. Both sides say how they feel, then if no side has the clear majority after both have completely said all they can, you vote. Simple as that. Once the vote is made, the person records how you want to word the exact answer to fit your vote, records it and then presents the next item up for discussion.

Also remember to never take, or make, anything personal with someone else in your group. You are working together to be constructive for your gaming community. Don't be destructive to one another, or that will come out when someone gets mad and quits. Then they could go on the forums flaming your group for x and y reasons and bring the credibility for your whole work down. I cant stress enough to stand united.

Don't be afraid to go against the majority either. With 5th still being new enough, people have many left over ideas of the game from 4th. Do your best to interpret the rules as if you had never played 2nd, 3rd or 4th.

EDIT: I am leaving for Adepticon tomorrow (4-1-09) and will not be able to respond to anything on these forums. However, if you do want any opinion of mine please PM me as I receive notice of that via E-Mail and can check that. Also, if you are going to be at Adepticon, feel free to stop me and chat me up. I wont promise to have a lot of time with all the goings on, but Ill do my best to give what I can to anyone interested enough to say hello. I think what your doing here is off to a great start and I say keep up the good work!

yakface
01-04-2009, 06:36
Hey guys. You of course have permission to use the INAT FAQ in any way you see fit. That permission is printed right in the first page of the document itself!

If you want a Word version of the document for ease of editing, PM me your email address (preferably on Dakka) and I'll send it to you.


As for your project, I wish you all the best of luck! If you're looking for a wiki to construct the FAQ in, might I suggest the Dakka article system (http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/Articles) (which is a wiki)?

I think it would definitely show some interesting community interaction to have the Warseer FAQ reside on Dakka while all the conversation occurs in the Warseer forum, but that's up to you.



FYI, the goal of the INAT FAQ is to create a comprehensive FAQ document that any group or tournament can feel good about using if they want. While I definitely won't try to dissuade you from creating a separate document, I do think that providing quality feedback to us (preferably along with poll results) about questions you feel were ruled incorrectly or that should be included in future INAT FAQ revisions would be a much better way to direct your energy rather than splintering things into yet another FAQ.

One of the things I always wish was that I could get even *more* polls done regarding tough situations to give the INAT council more feedback. I do what I can on Dakka, but there are a whole crap-ton of questions that could use polls and to write them up in a way that the situation is properly explained, all the options are clearly represented and the poll isn't written in an overly biased way, is very, very time consuming.

Having a whole crew of people working to discuss the issue and create quality polls (which are then voted on by a large amount of people) would be an incredible resource for us.

Ultimately, though, if you think its best to create a separate FAQ then you obviously will, and so should you. If the INAT FAQ's final legacy is that it was the springboard for an even better fan-made FAQ, then I would be a happy man.


Before you get started, I thought I'd throw out a few things to consider as I do now have a bit of experience with this process:


On 'RAW'

There is no such thing as true 'RAW', only 'RAW' based on the interpretation of the reader. What that means is if you are aiming to find the 'RAW' for any issue you can only ever hope to come to conclusion if all the people involved in writing your FAQ agree on the RAW. The more people you have involved, the less likely you will be able to ever come to a decisive conclusion on what the RAW say in any particular case.

There is a good chunk of gamers who think that any FAQ should "follow the 'RAW' whenever possible", but they don't realize what they are really saying is that the FAQ should follow their interpretation of what the RAW are.

The answers in the INAT FAQ that are labeled as 'RAW' only represent those questions the nine of us agreed had an answer that was clearly written in the rules. I'm sure if we had twenty people voting there would be far less answers labeled 'RAW'.

You should be aware that the concept of 'RAW' (as far as with a universally accepted FAQ) is a Unicorn that can never truly be achieved.


Comprehensive FAQ

Some of the critiques about the INAT FAQ is that it doesn't always fully explain why the clarification/rules change rulings were made and exactly where the 'RAW' rulings can be found in the rules.

You've also suggested that you'll possibly include dissenting opinions in your FAQ rulings and also possibly consolidating the GW and UKGT FAQs into the document as well.

I think one thing you have to realize is that the INAT FAQ is already 95 pages long. Admittedly, the formatting of the document is done to make reading easier as opposed to saving space and if it was reformatted to save space it would probably be closer to something like 60 pages or so (that's total speculation on my part).

Even so, the sheer amount of questions and rulings in the document frighten away all but the most hard-core gamers from even trying to read it. If you actually went ahead and included full details on why you made rulings, dissenting counter-opinions, and every ruling in the GW/UKGT FAQs I can only begin to imagine how large your FAQ really would be. I think it would almost be too big to be of any use to anyone (I already think the INAT FAQ is almost at that point).

Worse still, if you really plan to include all the GW and UKGT rulings, you'll find that, for whatever reason, quite a few of the rulings in those FAQs are *very* clearly covered in the rules. So you'll be filling all sorts of extra pages with questions that don't really need to be included (IMHO).

The reason we didn't include full explanations of our rulings and all the GW rulings in the INAT FAQ was simply a matter of trying to keep an already huge document as small as possible.


There Will Be Blood!

Many people express displeasure with how certain rulings in the INAT FAQ came down. In this very thread some people have said just reading it almost makes them ill!

If there is one thing I have learned from this whole process is this: If you manage to write this new, giant FAQ prepare for a literal crap-storm from anyone and everyone.

Whatever way you decide to start making rulings will instantly start to create schisms between how gamers think the FAQs should be ruled and there is no way to avoid this.

There are those who think FAQs should only stick to the RAW (their interpretation of it) and any deviation from this idea will make them very, very angry.

There are those who think a fan-made FAQ should do the job GW won't do and rule how (they think) the rules "should be" and when the FAQ fails to rule this way, they find it ridiculous, idiotic, makes them sick, etc.

And there are a million different shades of grey you won't even realize until you start getting into the process.

For (just one) example, there are some people who think that all versions of Terminator armor (across all codexes) should work the same. They think that to rule any other way is just ridiculous.

However, if you rule this way, how do you reconcile this ruling against the GW FAQs which clearly state that when there are differences between codexes you should always follow the wording in each particular codex?

If you decide to overule this idea in only some cases, where do you choose to draw the line? If you decide to go full-bore and make all similarly named wargear behave the same across every codex, then you've gone ahead and "changed the game" according to many.

And worse still, GW's own FAQs contradict themselves. In one breath they tell players to follow the wording in the codex, but then other FAQ rulings of theirs don't follow this principle.

So even if you come up with a consistent basis to make your rulings you will still invariably bump into GW's own inconsistent rulings and ruling against GW's rulings will most certainly alienate your FAQ from even more people.

Although your process in creating a Warseer Ork (or other individual codex) FAQs went smoothly, I'm not surprised. You had a group of motivated people working together towards a common goal (to create the FAQ), which means that even if you disagreed with each other you still had a reason to put those differences aside and come to some sort of conclusion.

However, if that same FAQ was ever implemented in any major gaming arena, I think you'd find all of a sudden the reception to your rulings would come under some pretty harsh criticism. Because no longer would you be dealing with people who would understand the context under which the ruling was made, but now you'd just have people who were angry that the ruling doesn't match how they think it should have been done.

In short, the idea that any document can truly be universal (or even close to that) really is a pipe-dream.


. . .


Wow. I ended up writing way more than I thought I was going to! I haven't proofed my post above so I apologize for the ramshackle nature of it and for any typos!

In the end, if I can help you guys with anything, just let me know.

jubilex
01-04-2009, 08:22
Cheers, Yakface, those words of wisdom are most appreciated!

We have had blood, guts, dissent and the withering away of volunteers in our previous incarnations.

I do worry about open polls though, some of the justifications for any particular vote can be extraordinary (watch out, will start sounding like justification of the East German political system in a mo).

Re document size, can it not be done, so as to have a data base somewhere to "follow up" on any particular ruling?
Ie, the faq contains the minimal ammount of text, including refs, p no's etc, but further info is available elsewhere?
Pro's/cons pertinent arguments, what would ammount to a distillation of the debate?
For those that were interested in a certain topic, it could be accessed independantly, to save on patience/eyesight/electricity bills.

mattjgilbert
01-04-2009, 08:27
It's been suggested elsewhere about a database for this stuff. An online living resource that you could print an FAQ from to take to a game would be a neat idea.

IAMNOTHERE
01-04-2009, 08:59
I think an online database with the reasoning behind the rulings is a good idea. A much sparser version would be better to print off and carry around with you. I hate to say it but bullet points might be worth considering for the layout.

Lets face it, if you've gone to the trouble of getting the faq then you should make a bit of effort to understand what's in there.

Ravenwing011
01-04-2009, 09:44
I'd be willing to help sign me up

Trekari
01-04-2009, 13:46
Without wishing to change the topic of this thread, I am going to defend my comments since it's been referenced twice now.

The Trapped! decision is the biggest reference I can think of to something that is horribly wrong. Under a mandate to go towards your own table edge without doubling-back, only to have it ruled that you can in fact go completely away from your table edge without being destroyed, goes against RAW quite clearly. I understand the potential 'strict' versus 'loose' definitions of double-back to justify that ruling, but I feel such a distinction holds no water.

The overwhelming majority of the INAT document is spot-on as far as I'm concerned, but that isn't to say it's perfect or without some glaring mistakes.

That being said, nobody will ever create a document of such a large scope that will please everyone 100% of the time. Hell, not even a GW document would make people agree with it when dealing with rules 'clarifications' as there is always the chance that actually reading the rulebook will expose flaws in GW's logic.

Ok...a big chance.

Knowing that there will be people who disagree with almost everything, and people who agree with everything should come with the decision to make a document. To that end however, I say full steam ahead! The worst thing that happens is nobody cares for your decisions, and the best thing that happens is GW starts writing better rulesets to prevent the need for the document in the first place.

Meriwether
01-04-2009, 15:05
My replies here are sort of to Yakface and sort of to everybody...


Hey guys. You of course have permission to use the INAT FAQ in any way you see fit. That permission is printed right in the first page of the document itself!

Sweet, thanks! (It looked that way, but it's nice to be super-sure!)


While I definitely won't try to dissuade you from creating a separate document, I do think that providing quality feedback to us (preferably along with poll results) about questions you feel were ruled incorrectly or that should be included in future INAT FAQ revisions would be a much better way to direct your energy rather than splintering things into yet another FAQ.

I both agree and disagree with this. I think that, whichever way we go, having a document that the huge majority of people can at least agree to -- even if they don't agree with every ruling -- is far more important than the umbrella under which it sits.


Having a whole crew of people working to discuss the issue and create quality polls (which are then voted on by a large amount of people) would be an incredible resource for us.

That's a possibility, too. Could you share with us which of your rulings were most problemmatic?

Thanks so much for your feedback on this -- it is highly appreciated! All of your statements about the problems that can arise from such a venture are well heeded... I think I have a pretty good idea of what I am getting in to, but you've nailed down something that I think is critical to begin with: an overarching philosophy for rules interpretation. I'll post more on that later.

As to the length of the FAQ, I have already given that some thought and have come to what I think is a reasonable 'solution':

Print the FAQ for each book seperately.

If each document is limited to a few pages, then it is less intimidating than one giant hunk of pedantic love. Similar to what GW does, make a library of Comprehensive FAQs -- one for the BRB, one for each codex, one for Apocalypse (if we want to go there... I'm not particularly inclined myself). That way, interested parties could download and print off the ones they want, while tournament judges could access the whole thing as needed.


Without wishing to change the topic of this thread, I am going to defend my comments since it's been referenced twice now.

Please don't. This isn't the place for it.

If you join the project, you'll have plenty of space to argue your case there.

Meri

cruise
01-04-2009, 15:43
Several comments have referenced a possible online system for tracking FAQs and suggested solutions.

Well, since I had some time to kill, and it sounded fun, how's this:

http://casual-tempest.net/projects/40k/gfaq/browse.php

I've only done a first pass at DB model and browsing interface so far, and added one sample entry (it's under "Any" and "Assault Phase").

References are mandatory in any replies to a question, which seemed a useful quality control requirement :P

Is this even vaguely useful/what people had in mind? Like I say, it mainly boredom fueled, so no loss if not, but with a simple entry form for questions and answers (another hour tops) it might be fairly useful...

mattjgilbert
01-04-2009, 20:25
I don't think Apocalypse needs an FAQ. It kind of goes against the concept behind Apocalypse to start dictating exact rulings.

Meriwether
02-04-2009, 01:14
Well, since I had some time to kill, and it sounded fun, how's this:

http://casual-tempest.net/projects/40k/gfaq/browse.php

As a way to organize particular questions before jamming them into an FAQ, it's ok...

...but is it really any more superior than spinning each new rules query off into its own forum thread?


I don't think Apocalypse needs an FAQ. It kind of goes against the concept behind Apocalypse to start dictating exact rulings.

I agree enthusiastically with this.

Meri

Ravenwing011
02-04-2009, 05:00
If this was already mentioned, then i apologize for redundancy trying to keep up with all of this. When it comes to each individual army maybe make a thread or a list of questions (or whatever) for said armies to make it easier to compile it all, allows you to keep from whatever methods you're planning using from getting bogged down, and make it easier to read as people discuss what's on their minds for a particular rule?

cruise
02-04-2009, 12:30
As a way to organize particular questions before jamming them into an FAQ, it's ok...

...but is it really any more superior than spinning each new rules query off into its own forum thread?


Well, there is the advantadge of enforcing certain things, like page references and organisational categories, plus having the information in a database makes compiling the end result much easier.

Even if it's used just to summarise discussion from a forum by a few editors, it might make keeping track of stuff a bit easier.

*shrug* If I get a bit more time I'll add a few more demonstration admin features I have in mind. Might make it easier to see what I mean.


If this was already mentioned, then i apologize for redundancy trying to keep up with all of this. When it comes to each individual army maybe make a thread or a list of questions (or whatever) for said armies to make it easier to compile it all, allows you to keep from whatever methods you're planning using from getting bogged down, and make it easier to read as people discuss what's on their minds for a particular rule?

Which is the sort of thing a database (not just mine) system would do, if we decided to go that route.

Coredump
03-04-2009, 18:24
I suggest we approach this on two tracks.

First, we review the INAT FAQ one section at a time; reviewing each Q&A.
If we agree with the ruling, or feel it is 'close enough'; we can just skip over it.
If we think it should be modified, or at least discussed, we can then discuss it and come to a 'Warseer' conclusion.
Once we have all of our conclusions in place, we can present them to INAT as 'our input'.
The idea being that between the folks at INAT and at Warseer, we can come to an agreement that both parties can agree to; thus leading to a single document.


The second track, would be any issues that are not covered in the INAT FAQ, that we feel should be covered. I am not sure if any of these exist, but they may.
We can then discuss them, and also present them to INAT for potential inclusion.



As for that part, I would recommend having only a select few that would be part of that 'combining' process with INAT. (Meri, Culven, Don Mondo...??)


(I do not wish to sound presumptious, I realize that the INAT council is under no obligation to listen to anything we say. But they have all seemed very willing so far.)

Meriwether
03-04-2009, 18:36
I suggest we approach this on two tracks.

I agree. In fact I think they should be, essentially, distinct but sequential projects. Do the first one first, and then the second one second.


As for that part, I would recommend having only a select few that would be part of that 'combining' process with INAT. (Meri, Culven, Don Mondo...??)

Once everyone else has had their input and we basically agree, it would be fine with me if we limited the 'contact with outsiders' to some kind of 'core group of representatives' or whatnot.


(I do not wish to sound presumptious, I realize that the INAT council is under no obligation to listen to anything we say. But they have all seemed very willing so far.)

This whole project is presumptuous. But it's a *friendly* kind of presumptuous. :D

Meri

Killmaimburn
03-04-2009, 19:29
The second track, would be any issues that are not covered in the INAT FAQ, that we feel should be covered. I am not sure if any of these exist, but they may. Of course they do..the question is do you really want to bulk it into a "comprehensive frequently asked questions" document,or keep it short and sweet and only handle the ones that start very particular levels of fights (so not questions that come up every week we just respond “duh!” too, and the ones so pedantic or unlikely that we don’t bother with etc)and then as Yakface says some bits that are in the GT FAQ..bigger document vs addressing the issues. (if someone is reading the 2 pages on Chaos does it matter to them if its 3?)
(A few chaos examples (we worked on) with varying degrees of point, Typhus demon weapon overheats vs saves,Can an IC join spawn (gets messy but fairly clear once unpicked), Defiler now has the abililty to fire ordinance and charge,Abbadon take wounds from demon weapon ,(no matter how hard fluff nuts may say otherwise), )


As for that part, I would recommend having only a select few that would be part of that 'combining' process with INAT. (Meri, Culven, Don Mondo...??) Has culven said he'll help out? If someone is just making representations/ a sales pitch for inclusions why not just send in one guy and let the document do the talking..thats way down the line anyway.No need to start creating concentric rings of authority/inner circles,yet, you'll just lose helpers.

BTW meri your sigs author is totally messing with the format man, break it up,my eyes they burn :)

Meriwether
04-04-2009, 19:41
Of course they do..the question is do you really want to bulk it into a "comprehensive frequently asked questions" document,or keep it short and sweet and only handle the ones that start very particular levels of fights

I think that a comprehensive FAQ is really the end goal I would be looking for. Sort of an "INAT FAQ Plus". As I said to Yakface, the extreme length of such a document could be managed quite well by simply making it an FAQ library -- one for each book/codex.


Has culven said he'll help out?

Not that I am aware of.


BTW meri your sigs author is totally messing with the format man, break it up,my eyes they burn :)

Done! :P

Meri

Eldanar
09-04-2009, 03:59
Well, Merri, you need to speak with Wintermute (if you have not already done so). He may have some suggestions for how to proceed on Warseer, if that is the route you choose to go.

From the amount of stuff that will need to be discussed, I'm not sure G&F would be the best spot. Warseer does have the capacity for private fora; however, it is up to the Admins to make the call to allow such.

Further, a question I have pondered since this thread was first raised is, "how useful is this document going to be?" Right now, every major tournament in the U.S. uses the INAT FAQ. Some directly and some modified.

Sadly, due to GW's inability and/or unwillingness to put out a comprehensive FAQ of its own, the INAT FAQ, at least among U.S. tournament playing groups, has more or less become de facto "official."

In general, I think the INAT FAQ is a good thing. However most of my issues with the INAT FAQ come in regard to old books, their "RAW," and what the 5th ed's RAI suggests the interpretation should be.

The problem with any FAQ is in getting people to agree to use it. Even if we develop a superior document, if everyone continues to use the INAT FAQ it will make no difference.

However...maybe...just maybe, if we get enough competing FAQ's out there, GW will get off it's collective duff and actually do its job and create patches for it's product in the form of an official comprehensive FAQ that gets updated and refreshed with each release as new questions and potential issues arise.

Meriwether
09-04-2009, 04:16
Well, Merri, you need to speak with Wintermute (if you have not already done so).

I have done so. I am waiting for some replies from him -- but won't be able to act on *anything* until after the 20th anyway.


Further, a question I have pondered since this thread was first raised is, "how useful is this document going to be?" Right now, every major tournament in the U.S. uses the INAT FAQ. Some directly and some modified.

Sadly, due to GW's inability and/or unwillingness to put out a comprehensive FAQ of its own, the INAT FAQ, at least among U.S. tournament playing groups, has more or less become de facto "official."

True enough. I think something more comprehensive that could also receive the blessing of the INAT folks would be pretty darn cool... But yet again, it's a matter of getting people to agree that is the stickler -- obviously.

If, at the end of the day, all we end up doing is making a 'more comprehensive INAT FAQ', and those folks get most of the credit, that wouldn't bother me a bit. Credit is not my concern, here. (Unless GW wants to hire me to do their FAQs. Then it matters a lot! But of course that's not going to happen...)


However...maybe...just maybe, if we get enough competing FAQ's out there, GW will get off it's collective duff and actually do its job and create patches for it's product in the form of an official comprehensive FAQ that gets updated and refreshed with each release as new questions and potential issues arise.

I wouldn't count on it, and it's certainly not my goal. I would much rather see an agreed-upon FAQ than multiple competing FAQs.

Meri

Eldanar
09-04-2009, 14:02
I'm with you. I would just like to have a better product that is a little more consistent in some of its interpretations. I could care less who gets the credit.

Meriwether
22-04-2009, 16:25
Update:

I'm back from my trip (we did ok at Nationals), sick as a dog, and basically in no condition to do anything worthwhile for the moment.

I am waiting on some information regarding organization, software, virtual collaboration space, etc, and will let you all know (here) what's going on as soon as I know. Expect movement of some kind or another in the next week or two.

Meri

Meriwether
06-05-2009, 03:24
Update 2: Now well, still waiting on some information. :/

Meri

Used Car Salesman
09-05-2009, 08:10
So this project isn't completely dead. Cool. If anything needs to be done besides wait, I'm down.

Meriwether
09-05-2009, 17:50
I got some information today -- and unfortunately it wasn't the information I wanted. No big deal.

I'm going to set up an off-site forum. It shouldn't take me too long -- I intend to do it on the sly at work this coming week. If someone wants to set up a *private* wiki to go along with it, that would be great -- I have no experience setting up or managing a wiki, but am of course willing to learn.

Meri

Sekhmet
09-05-2009, 19:25
i'd love to help out with my infamous raw skills

Meriwether
10-05-2009, 14:45
Here we go, folks! That didn't take nearly as long as I thought it might!

warseerfaqproject.mybb3.org

This is the first time I have set up a forum. Please, please, PLEASE:
A. Use your Warseer ID when you sign up. This will make it a lot easier for us all to know who we are talking to.
B. Read the forum rules before you do anything else.
C. Let me know ASAP (via a PM *here*, not there) of any issues in navigating, posting, etc.

Meri

mchmr6677
10-05-2009, 16:13
Do you want the discussions to start on any particular book or codex first or should we just start posting rule questions that appear to need a FAQ, such as the reserve platoon/valk question?

Meriwether
10-05-2009, 16:59
I figure that different people will have different interests, and so discussions can start with whatever book/codex you feel the need to address.

Meri

cruise
10-05-2009, 18:42
Signed up. Do you want some of the completed discussions from here re-created on the new site for a) completness and b) demonstration purposes?

Meriwether
10-05-2009, 20:35
Signed up. Do you want some of the completed discussions from here re-created on the new site for a) completness and b) demonstration purposes?

If some people would take it upon themselves to *sum up* the discussions had here on some of the various outstanding issues, that would be great.

Meri

cruise
10-05-2009, 21:47
First one done - let me know if that's an acceptable format and I'll do some more tomorrow.

Used Car Salesman
10-05-2009, 22:07
Cool. I joined...I personally like invisionfree better but this works too.

Meriwether
11-05-2009, 00:21
cruise -- it looks good. A good one to start with, too. It's a doozy, with a lot of argument on just about every forum!

Meri

Killmaimburn
12-05-2009, 08:42
Signed up and lurking- will get round to being useful nearer the end of the week. :)

Meriwether
12-05-2009, 11:57
It's all good. I'm still busier than I want to be, and can't really push things yet. I still haven't managed to go through the entire INAT FAQ and pick out what I see as glaring errors yet!

Meri

Iverald
12-05-2009, 12:26
I've always wanted to do something for the 40k community, so please count me in, but I am with those people who advise to wait for a few weeks (I've yet to finnish my B.A. and sit some exams).

By the way, I am studying translation, so it will be a pleasure to translate the final version into Polish (need soem brownie points soooo bad;))

:angel:

darrelltmcd
14-05-2009, 11:17
Yes please count me in I would love to help out. I'll try and sign on to the forum today. Doing most of my browsing through my Crackberry :) see you all on the other site.
Darrell

Meriwether
10-06-2009, 20:40
Ok, so we have a total of seventeen people on that forum, about half of which have contributed anything. A rather less-than-stellar response thus far... :/

So it's time to get out my floggin' whip!

Can I ask those of you who said "I want to help!" to look at the INAT FAQ, and the topics we have covered thus far, and post one new topic (using the posting guidelines I asked for) on something we have not covered? That would go a long way towards kick starting this project with a bit more oomph.

Thanks!

Meri

Eulenspiegel
10-06-2009, 23:16
I am chastised!
My excuse: I wanted to wait until my new internetprovider actually provided me with anything. After that I forgot.
Tomorrow I´ll look at your site (today I´m no good ;) ).