Tournament FAQs

[DoctorTom]

The point of my earlier claim was that it was not, originally, unclear. The IC leaving a unit obviously moves at his own speed; the moment he breaks away from the unit he is a unit of one and is not beholden to slowing down for them anymore.

Obviously? Then why do the rules state that he has to move out of coherency with the unit, and you don't measure the coherency until after they've all made their movement? According to many, the ICs "obviously" count as part of the unit until the measurement when you can actually show that he's out of coherency, and would therefore be limited by the movement restrictions of the unit he's leaving. There's been many threads in this forum debating that, and both sides have points. So, I would echo Theocracity's comments about there being many people who are convinced the way they play is correct, and it's not always the same as how you or I play.

See, my group and the way I do things with it was designed to kind of breed that sort out.

So, your events aren't designed to welcome everyone who wants to play?

Look at the way Don_mondo has talked to me throughout this thread, outright calling me a bad event organizer and implying my group would go extinct with such ridiculous practices, and derogatorily and derisively dismissing my "group" at every turn while telling us cherry-picked stories of how the game writers themselves beg to drink from his fount of epic knowledge. Guys like this are why I started my club, and are why it endures and grows while others around it falter and stagnate.

Well, to be fair, you have come out and insulted the FAQ at every instance, and have stated that any store owner who uses the FAQ doesn't know the rules, while offering cherry-picked stories of your own. From what I've seen, people are just responding in kind. I'm sure that some people would say that the reason for FAQs is because people like you ruined large tournaments without having them. You also are assuming that every club that follows a FAQ like INAT falters and stagnates, while every club like yours thrives and flourishes. I know that's not true, it can go either way, and most of the time isn't because of the attitude of people wanting a FAQ vs not wanting a FAQ to address issues. Given how you are being derisive and derogatory right back at Don Mondo, I can't see any evidence for why your club would be better than his.

I presented a new viewpoint and the old guard descends, to tell me straight away that the idea is preposterous and that my findings are a fluke or a mistake due to sheer ignorance. Like the church to Galileo, or the royalty to the explorers who found there was no edge of the earth awaiting across the ocean. I have acknowledged there is merit to the other side of things but vice versa is unthinkable to the old guard. It has happened many times before and it will happen many more times to come.

Ah, so now you're Galileo? (Oh, by the way, contrary to legends, Columbus and the like did not think there was an edge to the world - remember, he was looking for a shortcut to get to the Orient. But, that hasn't been the only time you've gotten things wrong). You should get off your cross, we need the wood for the fire.

You might have noted that some people have already said that your method might apply to small tournaments. Then again, there have been many times where there have been bad calls at small tournaments. I haven't seen you admit that having a FAQ like the INAT will greatly help reduce the chance or the severity of rules arguments at any tournament. Again, as Theocraxcity noted, using the FAQ will scale down from a large to a small tournament, but your method does not scale well at all to a larger tournament. I do have a question - are you the only judge at your tournaments? I can see many more problems with your method once multiple judges get involved.

[Omniassiah]

I have 15 years worth of experience running gaming tournaments and have never wasted my time with the INAT FAQ. I've looked through it many times and while I agree with most of the stuff in it pretty much all of those are pretty much what you should come to the conclusion if you just read all the applicable rules. The things I haven't agreed with are generally the really questionable stuff that can go both ways very easily and they haven't had the best track record in that area to my memory(Doom for exp). Basically every time I looked or was asked if I was going to use the INAT FAQ, I found that it would of required me to write a INAT FAQ FAQ to show what I was or wasn't going to use. It was quicker to browse the main 40k forums pull up the larger rules disputes and come up with my own quick checklist before hand. Also it wasn't fair to all the players because a good majority of them didn't even know that it existed (~45 out of 77 according to a survey I had the players fill out don't have the paperwork with me).

Now when I was down at a 'ard Boyz semi's at showcase comics I stole and tweaked how they handle their rules discrepancies during a game. If you call a judge over you explain the situation on the board that is causing the question and then the players shut up, for example: "These banshees got charged by these 'Nids with Lashwhips what is their initiative." The judge then looks for the appropriate rules, checks his 40k FAQ binder, and the issues a ruling. If you fail to have your rules if asked for you are ruled against, if you attempt to argue you position while he is looking you are ruled against. If you argue or if the rules dispute is determined to be frivolous by the judge then you are given a yellow card (I have only given a Frivolous yellow card once and it was to a guy that was trying to argue that his opponent couldn't assault is wave serpent because he couldn't get a model into contact with its base and that they model didn't count).

[Lord Damocles]

Now when I was down at a 'ard Boyz semi's at showcase comics I stole and tweaked how they handle their rules discrepancies during a game. If you call a judge over you explain the situation on the board that is causing the question and then the players shut up, for example: "These banshees got charged by these 'Nids with Lashwhips what is their initiative." The judge then looks for the appropriate rules, checks his 40k FAQ binder, and the issues a ruling. If you fail to have your rules if asked for you are ruled against, if you attempt to argue you position while he is looking you are ruled against. If you argue or if the rules dispute is determined to be frivolous by the judge then you are given a yellow card

Just out of curiosity, after the judge has made their ruling, would there be (/is there) a right of appeal in this setup?

For example if the judge overlooks the entry in an FAQ, can one of the players point this out?

[Omniassiah]

Just out of curiosity, after the judge has made their ruling, would there be (/is there) a right of appeal in this setup?

For example if the judge overlooks the entry in an FAQ, can one of the players point this out?

I usually ask for players to show me the rules/FAQ passages they think are relevant as I start. I don't want why they think its particularly relevant just the fact they think I should read it. It allows me to try and interpret what is supposed to go on without worrying about the long term effect it may have on the game. I have allowed players to reasonably ask for a second judges opinion in which case I showed him the the situation, appropriate passages, and waited quietly with the players till he came to his conclusion.