Tournament FAQs

[Seattledv8]

Yes, and that rulebook is written by GW.
This forum alone proves that they do not write clear, concise rules that always have a easy conclusion.

I would much rather have a list of rulings spelled out ahead of time than deal with a local groups 'house rules' which is what you are describing.
There are several grey areas in the rules, even people of good will can and do disagree on these.
The group that uses the INAT still has the advantage in that there are no surprises.

[solkan]

I've already pointed out that the FAQs answer no real questions. Besides, your example is fallible; what is to stop RJ from STILL hating the store owner and TOs for using that particular packet? My exact original point in this thread!

Back on page two of this thread you mentioned a store that wanted your group to use the INAT FAQ for the tournament that you backed out of running. Ask yourself the question, "Why did the store owner want us to use that FAQ?"

The owner of the store doesn't care what the rules for 40k are. The owner of the store cares whether or not the event is being run in a fair manner, because unfair events create unhappy customers and unhappy customers don't come back to the store. If you have a FAQ and can prove that you're being fair, the store owner can write the unhappy customer off as an unhappy idiot. You can't make everyone happy, and retail's good about teaching people how to politely ignore idiots.

If you don't have a FAQ then you don't have a consistent mechanism that the store owner can point to to prove that you're handling the rules issues in a fair manner. Then the store owner has to figure out whose fault it is that the person is unhappy and what should be done about it. That leads to the simple solution: Here's your game, here's the well known FAQ for that game to keep the rules arguments down and help keep things fair, now go place nice.

A similar truth holds true for big events. The rules for a wargame are big and complicated, and the people attempting to keep a big event organized have enough people related problems to deal with without dealing with preventable problems. People who go to an event and become unhappy because the event wasn't fair stop coming back, and that's a problem that can be prevented using FAQ's. And event organizers have enough problems that they really don't care whether anyone stays at home because they don't like a FAQ ruling. It's far better that someone stay at home and be unhappy, than it is for that person to go to the event and make other people at the event unhappy.

The key to all of this is that stopping the game for a round of "Extemporaneous Rules Debate: 40k" to find out whether your assault is going to work or not makes most people unhappy. You don't see "Best Rules Laywer" in the list of awards next to "Best Sportsman", "Best General", "Best Painted Army" and "Best Overall" because most people don't go wargaming events for the rules lawyering. They go to an event expecting the rules to work the way the rules are supposed to work without round five surprises. And just like the fact that it's better for someone to be unhappy at home rather than make someone at the event unhappy, it's better for someone to find out that Rule X does Y instead Z before the event, than to find out at the event. And if Rule X is a deal breaker, again, it's better to be unhappy at home than to make people at the event unhappy.

Is the FAQ going to make things perfect? No, of course not. But having the FAQ and improving the FAQ makes things better. And a reasonable definition of "fair" is "It's not perfect, but we're trying to make it better for everyone." It won't make everyone happy, but it'll help improve the odds that the people who show up stay happy.

[Chapters Unwritten]

All of this is completely able to be applied to my approach, and I fail to see the difference. My methods do exactly what they are designed to do; discourage frivolous rule questions and discourage attendance by people whose tournament game plan revolves around them.

It is also for this reason that we have our soft scoring "Honor System" in place. One such category is Rules Knowledge. If you are a jerk it will be reflected in your scores, and soft scores that are very poor have points deductions associated with them. This is designed around consistency between the rounds, so someone who does badly on say, sportsmanship for one round, doesn't get screwed; but someone who does consistently badly on it does. Also, we don't pair by scores, but by the soft scores; so your final round, you face someone with a comparable sportsmanship total, and in the second round, a comparable generalship total (generalship encompasses army composition, rules knowledge, and gameplay). So you bring an ugly army, your second game will be against a guy like you; if you are a jerk, your last matchup will be against another jerk.

It's worked out wonderfully as an overall package. Of course all of these ideas are very progressive-minded and are highly differentiated from your standard events formats that are floating around. I don't expect people to adopt them. But the point is...if you make it not worthwhile to argue, people will not argue. And, if they are a person who feels this game is desperately broken and needs intervention, they will not come to our events -- which is exactly what I was shooting for.

Also, for what it is worth, I could replace every instance of "FAQ" in the above post with "our published rules for disputes" and have the same exact outcomes. It has certainly not hurt attendance; it's helped us create a tournament that people don't have to feel awkward about going to because the local scenesters who attend tourneys are *******. Also, more importantly, it ensures your games will be fun and not marred by judgment calls and rules debates.

[Theocracity]

All of this is completely able to be applied to my approach, and I fail to see the difference. My methods do exactly what they are designed to do; discourage frivolous rule questions and discourage attendance by people whose tournament game plan revolves around them.

The difference is that the players can play based on their knowledge of the rules clarifications ahead of time. If a player's strategy hinges on what turns out to be a rules disagreement, it could change the balance of a game. I think that player would rather have known beforehand so he wouldn't end up in that position.

Also, I'd like to point out that while being exclusive may work fine for the small events you run, it doesn't work for big events. When you're paying to rent out an event hall, you don't turn away a paying player just because he doesn't play the game the 'right' way. A similar logic drives the store owners who host tournaments; it costs them money to host, so they want to avoid situations that could lead to unhappy customers.

[Chapters Unwritten]

1.) If a store holds a tournament during normal operating hours, it doesn't cost any money to host.

2.) These FAQs are worthless, only a store owner with no idea how the game works would have any reason to utilize it.

3.) If I give the same advance notice about one of my events, why is that different then giving advance notice that an FAQ is used?

[Theocracity]

1.) If a store holds a tournament during normal operating hours, it doesn't cost any money to host.

2.) These FAQs are worthless, only a store owner with no idea how the game works would have any reason to utilize it.

3.) If I give the same advance notice about one of my events, why is that different then giving advance notice that an FAQ is used?

1) It always costs money to run the store. Rent, salaries for employees, utilities, cleanup, refreshments for the players aren't free. While tournaments can lure potential customers in to the store, it's in the owner's interest to keep everyone happy while they're there, regardless of their personal interpretation of the rules. A potential new customer lured by a tournament could easily turn into a frustrated non-customer soured by 'unfair' treatment or patronizing behavior. It's in the owner's interest to avoid that.

2) As noted above, a store owner doesn't have to care about the quality of the rules; he has enough to worry about keeping the place running and not antagonizing customers. They don't care whether someone plays the 'right' way or not.

3) Because your version promotes potential confusion. If there are two potential understandings of a vague rule, I have no idea how to plan my list or strategy if it could involve that. Do I just assume I'm right, and hope that a TO agrees or I win a dice roll? Or do I avoid it, and find myself surprised when my opponent uses it against me (with an equally vague result from the TO or dice)? Having the rulings ahead of time means that I know what to expect before I hit the table, and avoids the situation of 'I wouldnt have done all this if I'd known.'

[DoctorTom]

First and foremost, what makes my interpretation so likely to be lacking in perspective? I have not played all over the world like some folks may have but clearly you all do not know me personally, and so you cannot say with any certainty what degree of inaccuracy my judgment calls would make. All of the reasons my judgments could be poor, are the very same reasons the INAT authors' judgments could be. That is why I take myself out of the equation.

Actually, the fact that you think it's perfectly okay for a judges in a tournament to have 4+ rolls for one situation every time it comes up in a tournament so that you can have conflicting results instead of having one consistent judgement throughout the tournament is good evidence that your judgement is lacking in perspective.

A lot of you make mention of how INAT being incongruent with RAW is okay because, hey, it's out there for players to read beforehand. How does that not also apply to my ideals?

Are your ideals out there beforehand for the players in the tournament to know how the things are going to be rules? If so, then that's fine. If you get people asking rules questions beforehand and you put out the answers for people to know beforehand, then you're essentially doing the same thing as the INAT is doing for the tournaments that it's used at. If you're not putting out your rulings beforehand, then there's a big difference. (And, we're only going on your opinion here about INAT not being RAW, based on the explosion result - we'll get to that in a bit.

First off, my groups' event strategy includes publicizing long beforehand that you will be expected to have your codex, a rulebook, and FAQs on hand to solve problems, and that in the event no answer could be found within those or the GW FAQs, you will most likely be at the mercy of the dice gods if a TO can't find a ruling by RAW. . In fact, I have gone on record more than once as saying that a dispute would automatically rule against a player who did not have any of those materials and who is just trying to summarize from memory a rule as part of an argument. "RAW or bust" essentially. So what makes my method, pre-publicized, so wrong versus the idea of some pre-publicized international FAQ that answers a gaggle of questions no one is asking?

The fact that you're allowing for inconsistent rulings with the "mercy of the dice gods" that you admit to, for one. Let's turn the question around showing some other presumptions (you show your bias with the "answers a gaggle of questions no one is asking", although it covers questions that many is asking). What makes having a pre-publicized FAQ that deals with anything that might come up so wrong versus the idea of having some judges that are too lazy to work out the answers to some common questions beforehand and will instead just make you roll a die to come up with an answer when they can't find the answer or can't be bothered to look it up? Which method is more prone to abuse - the one where the answers are known beforehand, or the ones where you think you can get a 4+ chance to pull off something if it looks even slightly dubious? Also, is it worse to have one issue dealt with consistently, or to have the issue decided one way half the time it comes up in a tournament and the other way the other half of the time? Don't some people have the justifiable right to feel that they were screwed out of a win if the decision didn't go their way and they lost because of it, but someone else playing the same army at a different table advances because in his game the answer did go his way?

If you say INAT is fine because players can alter their playstyle to fit it beforehand...can players not also come to my events, expecting that arguing rules without having the RAW to back it up will result in a random, possibly harmful, judgment by the fickle dice gods? For my events it has done exactly what it has been engineered to do: keep these people out, and keep the people here happily playing.

Don't players have the right to expect consistent rulings from judges and not have to rely on random dice rolls? That's what we have judges at tournaments for, after all.

These same people also have a great interest in their FAQ being used for everything. And the major tournaments have never impressed me, with their archaic scoring and swiss pairing infrastructure.

Scoring and swiss pairing has nothing at all to do with the FAQ, so why bother even bringing it up unless it's just to show that you have a bias against large tournaments?

INAT is not an impartial way to settle disputes; just the only available one, and I'd be skeptical if it ever HAS settled a dispute.

That's pure codswallop and you know it. Having a FAQ out is impartial for settling disputes, and you haven't provided good justification for claiming it isn't. And you're skeptical that any dispute have ever been settled at a large tournament bu the INAT, ever? You are either acting naive or being disingenuous when you make that claim. Making such claims also plays against you when you ask people what makes your interpretation so likely to be lacking in perspective, as you did in the first sentence of your post.

(and RE: the vehicle exploding thing...I've already posted it earlier...they add the caveat that a vehicle which explodes forces models to be unable to assault, even though they do not "disembark" as they do when it is a wreck...could be used for arguments, etc. The bit people keep THINKING I'm referring to is all covered by the standard rules; any time you take hits, they get rolled to wound, and wounds get allocated. No mystery there whatsoever).

Ah, the part about models being unable to assault. You do realize, don't you, that GW has already addressed this issue in their main rulebook FAQ?

Q: If a transport vehicle is destroyed in a Movement
phase in which it has moved flat out, what happens to
any embarked models, as passengers may not
disembark from a vehicle that has moved flat out in
that Movement phase? (p70)
A: They are removed as casualties.

So, GW has shown here that they are treating vehicle destroyed results - whether it's a wreck or a vehicle explosion - as having the passengers disembark. The only reason the passengers are casualties is because in a vehicle moving flat out they aren't allowed to disembark that phase (which GW changed to last for the entire player turn). If anything, INAT is being consistent with GW's ruling here. Yet, you want to insist that the INAT FAQ is twisting the rules because GW treats passengers as disembarking for the purpose of fast vehicles moving flat out, yet INAT is changing the rules by being consistent with this and also treating passengers as disembarking from exploding vehicles for other reasons also. Maybe you should complain to GW about their FAQs instead of complaining about the INAT FAQ; if anybody changed rules it was GW.

1.) If a store holds a tournament during normal operating hours, it doesn't cost any money to host.

There's a difference between costing to host and costing to play in the tournament. Many people charge for their tournaments and have that go into money for the prizes. People paying to play have a right to expect consistent, competent judging for the tournament. Just relying on a 4+ roll for a lot of the judgments, with the results possibly changing every time it comes up, is certainly not consistent and does raise the question about competence. Why bother calling them judges if they're not going to judge?

2.) These FAQs are worthless, only a store owner with no idea how the game works would have any reason to utilize it.

This statement is untrue, as has been proven here. Plenty of people who actually do know how the game works use them. You're just copping an attitude that since you don't like the INAT FAQ, it must be inherently worthless and that you know the game better than all the people who do use it. Now that is something I'd be skeptical about.

3.) If I give the same advance notice about one of my events, why is that different then giving advance notice that an FAQ is used?

Covered earlier in the post. If you provide a FAQ that shows how there will be consistent rulings - saying you're going to use dice rolls doesn't count as being consistent - then it is different. If people have questions beforehand about how a ruling should go, they should be able to ask you and expect the results to be the same during the tournament. They shouldn't have to rely on a 4+ roll in a case like that, they should have been provided an answer that will be used throughout the tournament.

[Lord Inquisitor]

2.) These FAQs are worthless, only a store owner with no idea how the game works would have any reason to utilize it.

Leaving aside your statement that they are "worthless" (translation, I presume, "I don't necessarily agree with all of their rulings"), but indeed the tournament organisers aren't always die-hard 40K players or up to date on the latest RAW arguments. I can think of many occasions where I've had a rules question with an opponent and it's taken both of us forever to explain what the issue actually is to the judge who had no understanding of the nuance in the rules actually was. I've had some terrible rule calls in my time from judges who simply don't understand or don't have the time to consider an issue properly.

Whether you agree with their rulings or not, the Adepticon team have experience with the biggest 40K tournaments and have people very familiar with the 40K rules make a considered judgement away from the heat of the event.

3.) If I give the same advance notice about one of my events, why is that different then giving advance notice that an FAQ is used?

Because (1) this doesn't allow players to play without rules disputes and (2) it doesn't actually tell us anything. The whole point of the INAT is that ideally two players won't need to even look up their issues as both players will know how to resolve a given issue. There won't even be a dispute. Calling over a judge, explaining the issue and after five minutes of flicking of pages just rolling a D6 for it wastes time and doesn't make anyone happy. No one can prepare for these situations and they can be quite important for an army.

Now, if you were to record every ruling you make and put them online for everyone to see - great. But that's a lot of work for most TOs, who can just use the INAT.

[don_mondo]

Well, I think most of us have realized by now that CU has his 'opinions' regarding running a tournament and nobody is going to change his mind. It's time for this thread to go the way of the dodo and TOs that run crappy events. Will a mod PLEASE lock this circular debate?

[Fithos]

A lot of good points brought up so far and just for perspective I think that having a FAQ (whether INAT or not) out before an event is a good idea to get all players on the same page. Just showing up and winging it seems like it defeats the purpose of a strategy game tournament to me.

There have been a lot of people, however, who have been harping on about this point with statements like "Am I just supposed to show up and assume my interpretations of the rules, which are vital for my strategy, are correct" I think this is the most ridiculous argument in this whole thread. First of all, if you are basing your whole strategy around a grey area rule then you are probably exploiting vague rules for an unfair advantage which is also not in the spirit of the game or the event. Second if you are basing your army around this strategy then you probably already know it is a grey area rule unless you only play in a cave with the same person over and over who assumes you know the rules well enough to make such a call. Why would you not contact a TO before the event with your specific rules questions when you know they are going to be an issue. Whenever I play at an event that has no FAQ I always make sure to ask the TO about hot button issues beforehand, even if they don't pertain to my army. I think it is a lot more acceptable for someone to lose because they didn't take the initiative to know the rules that were being played than for someone to lose because the dice didn't go their way.

at OP. I would just browse the rules forum and see what kinds of questions are asked. If it is more than 3 pages (eg what counts a a GK psyker for the purposes of the one assassin) it is probably a hot button issue and if it keeps coming up(eg FNP) you should probably just make sure you know the answer for speed sake.

[Nurgling Chieftain]

Fithos: Let's get more specific. Should I leave my Plaguebearers at home just because some folks feel very strongly that you cannot get a FNP save unless you also have an armor save?

[Chapters Unwritten]

Lord Inquisitor has made a much better case than the random bitter jabs at me here and there. But at my events, no non-player will ever be a judge. Period. So this is an issue I don't have to deal with; engineered as such because of precisely the ugly situation Lord Inq. describes, where some guy who has no idea how to play has to make a judgment call without any context.

You raise a good point in that the Adepticon team gets to develop these responses without an impending ragequitter breathing down their necks, so there is merit to that. You also raise a lot of great points about the possible time constraint of doing a proper look-up on the involved rules of a conflicting situation. So far these are the best reasons I've seen toward the INAT, and similar approaches, being valuable.

There's a lot of vitriol to sift through before the pink post, though. This response was wayyyy huge and I don't want to derail the discussion, so I'm going to just let it lie at a couple of key points.

There's a difference between costing to host and costing to play in the tournament. Many people charge for their tournaments and have that go into money for the prizes. People paying to play have a right to expect consistent, competent judging for the tournament. Just relying on a 4+ roll for a lot of the judgments, with the results possibly changing every time it comes up, is certainly not consistent and does raise the question about competence. Why bother calling them judges if they're not going to judge?

Again, not at all consistent with what I am describing. Of course the judges judge!

Also, no, stores do not lose any money on tourneys, not if they are the ones putting them on. It is illegal to gamble in the city we are in, and so we cannot just hand people cash prizes; all the local stores do gift certificates. That means even the prizes are profitable to the store. So if a tourney takes in over $1000 like a lot of the popular ones here do, that is all the store's, one way or the other. Not including the much higher than normal volumes of drinks and snacks the stores sell during the sometimes 12+ hour event. The store my group plays at BEGS me to run events, but they don't give us the timeframe needed to do a full proper event unless it is a rare circumstance.

This statement is untrue, as has been proven here. Plenty of people who actually do know how the game works use them. You're just copping an attitude that since you don't like the INAT FAQ, it must be inherently worthless and that you know the game better than all the people who do use it. Now that is something I'd be skeptical about.

I am not presumptuous enough to assume that everyone who says they know the game and uses INAT actually knows the game, and I don't expect anyone to think the same. I am fortunate to have a group with largely solid players where rules disputes do not really come up, but yet, everyone makes an honest attempt to play by the book. I know that's not always the case. But adding more rules to the existing allegedly horrible ones doesn't help anything, it just adds more loopholes to play with.

I am genuinely curious about peoples' experiences with INAT, and tourney FAQs in general. I think I will make another thread about it and see what peoples' experiences have been like.

*Response about my example of the vehicle explosion*

All largely irrelevant, I'm afraid. For one, RAI =/= RAW. It does not say anything about treating passengers as disembarking, and it specifies a situational condition to apply the rule, a condition dependent on it being your movement phase. Of course, more importantly than of that debatable bit, the INAT guys have said that:

"In addition, the models count as having disembarked from a vehicle (and so cannot assault the same turn if the vehicle wasn’t open-topped, for example)"

Emphasis mine. So I can't assault out of a vehicle my enemy destroys during his shooting or assault phases. Big change! Since you can't ever under any circumstance I know of launch an assault during the enemy's shooting or assault phases the whole thing is rendered largely pointless. I learned this when I pointed out to my players this rule, and they quickly and immediately picked up this quirk.

I'm sure it comes up all the time at Adepticon, though.

[Theocracity]

Fithos: Let's get more specific. Should I leave my Plaguebearers at home just because some folks feel very strongly that you cannot get a FNP save unless you also have an armor save?

Another example: "I wouldn't have charged my Lashwhip Tyranid Warriors at those Halberd Purifiers if I'd known the Initiative modifier wouldn't save me." Or something similar, if I haven't got that scenario perfect.

How many times have you said "I wouldn't have made that move if I'd known X was the case, I thought it would be Y." If it turns out to be X because of a vague rule dispute, you could be screwed without the ability to take your move back. If you knew X was the case ahead of time you might have done something totally different (like leave the Warriors in their case).

[Chapters Unwritten]

Fithos: Let's get more specific. Should I leave my Plaguebearers at home just because some folks feel very strongly that you cannot get a FNP save unless you also have an armor save?

Another one that I don't know why it is a question. A model without an armor save can't take a save against a wound, so every wound it takes would be an unsaved wound because you can't roll an armor save, just like a 5+ save against a bolter can't roll an armor save but still gets FNP. Also, the fact that FNP would do nothing for a model without an armor save in this line of thinking should give you a clue as to the validity of it....

How many times have you said "I wouldn't have made that move if I'd known X was the case, I thought it would be Y." If it turns out to be X because of a vague rule dispute, you could be screwed without the ability to take your move back. If you knew X was the case ahead of time you might have done something totally different (like leave the Warriors in their case).

Very valid concern. I consider it a fairly unique methodology, but to me, if I make a screw-up like that in a competitive environment, I would consider myself pretty much solely responsible and will even refuse a takeback offered by the opponent. My logic is simple; next time, I will know a lot better if I let the mistake stand.

Of course not many people play like that. But that is how I deal with it, personally.

(Also worth noting again that I would have assumed this was the case because of the wording of lash whips and the halberds, not for nothing)

[Lord Inquisitor]

All largely irrelevant, I'm afraid. For one, RAI =/= RAW. It does not say anything about treating passengers as disembarking, and it specifies a situational condition to apply the rule, a condition dependent on it being your movement phase. Of course, more importantly than of that debatable bit, the INAT guys have said that:

"In addition, the models count as having disembarked from a vehicle (and so cannot assault the same turn if the vehicle wasn’t open-topped, for example)"

Emphasis mine. So I can't assault out of a vehicle my enemy destroys during his shooting or assault phases. Big change! Since you can't ever under any circumstance I know of launch an assault during the enemy's shooting or assault phases the whole thing is rendered largely pointless. I learned this when I pointed out to my players this rule, and they quickly and immediately picked up this quirk.

I'm sure it comes up all the time at Adepticon, though.

I'm not sure I entirely follow you but I presume the thrust of this question would be chiefly directed at a Death of Glory attack, which would be made on the vehicle-owner's turn out of sequence.

While not something that comes up "all the time", it is nevertheless a scenario that does occur from time to time. Transport tank shocks, is blown up and the troops inside would quite like to assault the troops right next to them, please. It's pretty rare occurrence, sure, but it'll be quite important one way or the other when it does come up.

As for RAI vs RAW, I think it is appropriate for the INAT FAQ to answer questions in a way that might deviate slightly from strict RAW, particularly when a GW FAQ sets a precedent.

[don_mondo]

Very valid concern. I consider it a fairly unique methodology, but to me, if I make a screw-up like that in a competitive environment, I would consider myself pretty much solely responsible and will even refuse a takeback offered by the opponent. My logic is simple; next time, I will know a lot better if I let the mistake stand.

Even if the 'mistake' is due to a judge making a piss poor call or telling you to roll it off, even when you KNOW you are right? But because the other player has a hazy grey area the judge says roll it off? That's not a 'mistake', at least not on the players part........................................

And that is why a TO should want some sort of published and readily available FAQ or a way for players planning on attending your event to ask questions well ahead of the event.

And just in case you're not sure, GK Halberds are Initiative 3 vs Wraith whip coils.

[Seattledv8]

Another one that I don't know why it is a question. A model without an armor save can't take a save against a wound, so every wound it takes would be an unsaved wound because you can't roll an armor save, just like a 5+ save against a bolter can't roll an armor save but still gets FNP. Also, the fact that FNP would do nothing for a model without an armor save in this line of thinking should give you a clue as to the validity of it....

Your answer is unclear to me, does the Plaguebearers get to use FNP from a bolter wound in your opinion?

[Chapters Unwritten]

I'm not sure I entirely follow you but I presume the thrust of this question would be chiefly directed at a Death of Glory attack, which would be made on the vehicle-owner's turn out of sequence.

While not something that comes up "all the time", it is nevertheless a scenario that does occur from time to time. Transport tank shocks, is blown up and the troops inside would quite like to assault the troops right next to them, please. It's pretty rare occurrence, sure, but it'll be quite important one way or the other when it does come up.

As for RAI vs RAW, I think it is appropriate for the INAT FAQ to answer questions in a way that might deviate slightly from strict RAW, particularly when a GW FAQ sets a precedent.

Perfectly sound logic all around, and I stand corrected that the ruling can occasionally affect things. I imagine in that situation it would be a game-breaker a lot of the time, even if it does come up rarely.

Your answer is unclear to me, does the Plaguebearers get to use FNP from a bolter wound in your opinion?

In my opinion, yes. Long story short, I feel that way because otherwise, giving them Feel No Pain without an armor save, would be pointless.

Even if the 'mistake' is due to a judge making a piss poor call or telling you to roll it off, even when you KNOW you are right? But because the other player has a hazy grey area the judge says roll it off? That's not a 'mistake', at least not on the players part........................................

1.) Everybody "KNOWS they're right"...the TO might even know he's wrong. But by your other logic he has to make a decision and stick to it, even if it's a bad one. So this situation is a point against your outlook, not mine; by my outlook, this wouldn't even happen, because I probably would have let it slide or found the answer in black and white in the book. If you KNOW you're right, you can point it out in the books and there's no need to even bring the TO in.

2.) If I know I'm right, I will have a rulebook where I can point out the rules in question ready for the TO to see. If you can't point out why you're right, then it doesn't matter how sure you are.

3.) To me, if the TO goes against it anyway, oh well. Like the board layout or the fickle hand of the dice gods, I don't like to blame my losses on tough luck. This frowns on the TO and the event, but as already mentioned...I don't play in events where the TOs are so out of touch with Warhammer 40k's rules that they need a smokescreen like the INAT to avoid responsibilities for rules adjudication. I consider myself a good enough player that I should be able to overcome such adversities. One way or another, the way I play I would have never had such an argument - because, unless the other guy was breaking the rules as written, I wouldn't have asked a TO to come over in the first place.

(And incidentally, thanks for the tip, but reading the rules for the lash whips /whip coils and the rules for halberds already made that clear, and my group has been playing it that way from the onset. Appreciate the attitude, though. Didn't you say you were leaving this thread a couple of pages back?)

And that is why a TO should want some sort of published and readily available FAQ or a way for players planning on attending your event to ask questions well ahead of the event.

And just in case you're not sure, GK Halberds are Initiative 3 vs Wraith whip coils.

The current INAT doesn't cover that. This has been how we have played it by wording of the rules involved. The GW FAQ for Necrons covers this; INAT doesn't seem to. INAT does cover Nid lash whips, though:

GK.54E.01 – Q: Based on GW’s official Grey Knight & Tyranid FAQs can you please clarify what happens in combat when a model armed with a Nemesis Force Halberd and a model with a Tyranid Lash Whip are in base contact with each other?
A: The Lash Whip’s Initiative reduction takes precedence over the Halberd’s +2 Initiative bonus [clarification].

Basically repeats what's in the real FAQ. -_-

[Seattledv8]

Well yes of course, it's even stated up front

In the case that any official GW FAQs are released or updated after this publication date, and they contain rulings that
contradict those found in this document, the official GW ruling obviously takes precedence.

[DoctorTom]

Also, no, stores do not lose any money on tourneys, not if they are the ones putting them on. It is illegal to gamble in the city we are in, and so we cannot just hand people cash prizes; all the local stores do gift certificates. That means even the prizes are profitable to the store. So if a tourney takes in over $1000 like a lot of the popular ones here do, that is all the store's, one way or the other. Not including the much higher than normal volumes of drinks and snacks the stores sell during the sometimes 12+ hour event. The store my group plays at BEGS me to run events, but they don't give us the timeframe needed to do a full proper event unless it is a rare circumstance.

You miss the point. Whether the prizes are gift certificates, store credit or cash it irrelevant. The point is, people pay to get in the tournament, and they have the reason to expect competent judging, You're going off on a tangent that completely irrelevent.

I am not presumptuous enough to assume that everyone who says they know the game and uses INAT actually knows the game, and I don't expect anyone to think the same.

No, you were presumuptuous enough to claim the opposite: "only a store owner with no idea how the game works would have any reason to utilize it. " Doesn't that sound like a ridiculous statement on the face of it? Isn't is just possible that the store owner does know how it works, has found that the INAT FAQ works for him for dealing with most answers and will be impartial? I've seen a lot of threads here opened up starting with a phrase something like "last weekend I was playing in a tournament and the judge made a call against me which goes against the rules", and usually turns out that it was in fact a bad call. These happen a lot more at tournaments that don't have a FAQ out beforehand.

I am fortunate to have a group with largely solid players where rules disputes do not really come up, but yet, everyone makes an honest attempt to play by the book. I know that's not always the case. But adding more rules to the existing allegedly horrible ones doesn't help anything, it just adds more loopholes to play with.

That's just pure nonsense. You're providing the answers that will prevent disputes or quickly resolve them. It's not adding more loopholes - if anything it's closing things that some people might already see as loopholes. And, odds are that they've considered what might be an additional loophole and have addressed it. I'd like to see you back that assertion up - go ahead and show 3 loopholes that the INAT FAQ generates that weren't already there because of GW's rules and FAQs.

All largely irrelevant, I'm afraid. For one, RAI =/= RAW. It does not say anything about treating passengers as disembarking, and it specifies a situational condition to apply the rule, a condition dependent on it being your movement phase. Of course, more importantly than of that debatable bit, the INAT guys have said that:

It's not irrelevant at all especially for someone who claims to use the FAQs and "common sense" in his judging. It states that the passengers die in any kind of wreck if the vehicle moved flat out that turn. The only rules that exist to keep a model from getting out of a vehicle are the disembarking when moving flat out rules. So, whether you want to treat it as RAI or RAW (with the FAQ it's actually RAW) - you are disembarking from a wreck. It's not an INAT change, and the only change was GW closing the loophole for a vehicle that explodes vs. a vehicle that merely becomes a wreck. But, from this dispute alone, you should see the need for having a FAQ for the tournament with consistent answers instead of just relying on a judge who is going to claim to use the main rulebook, GW rulebooks and "common sense" - you play it the way most people wouldn't, especially after they've a read and understood the GW FAQ.

"In addition, the models count as having disembarked from a vehicle (and so cannot assault the same turn if the vehicle wasn’t open-topped, for example)"


Emphasis mine. So I can't assault out of a vehicle my enemy destroys during his shooting or assault phases. Big change! Since you can't ever under any circumstance I know of launch an assault during the enemy's shooting or assault phases the whole thing is rendered largely pointless. I learned this when I pointed out to my players this rule, and they quickly and immediately picked up this quirk.

I'm sure it comes up all the time at Adepticon, though.

Again, I point to my comment about people who read and understand the FAQs. Let's look at the question again:

"Q: If a transport vehicle is destroyed in a Movement
phase in which it has moved flat out, what happens to
any embarked models, as passengers may not
disembark from a vehicle that has moved flat out in
that Movement phase? (p70)"

Emphasis mine this time. The question specifically states the vehicle is destroyed during the movement phase in which it moved flat out. That means it either did a tank shock which triggered a Death or Glory which destroyed the vehicle, or else it rammed another vehicle and was destroyed in the process. In either case, it is not the enemy's shooting or assault phase, it's the player's own movement phase, which is followed by the player's shooting phase, then the player's assault phase. Without the GW FAQ saying that the passengers were destroyed, you'd have people claiming the surviving passengers could assault. The question of whether passengers in a vehicle that had been destroyed can assault has come up here often, as has (before the GW FAQ) how to handle passengers in a vehicle that moved flat out then exploded. It's clear that the FAQ was closing a loophole (not opening one, as you like to claim FAQs do). Maybe you should go and talk with your players again and see if any of them picked up that Ramming and Death or Glory mean that the question's not irrelevant after all.