Tournament FAQs

[Seattledv8]

Thats your big horrible example?
Yes , it is not clearly stated in the 'Destroyed-explodes!'rules but the FAQ's do back up the idea that the unit placed after an explosion 'counts as' disembarking.
The example given is worded a bit wonky (the vehicle would have had to have moved to disallow an assault, Open topped would not allow them to assault as per BRB FAQ

Q: Do any upgrades or special rules a vehicle has cease
to work once it is destroyed? (p61)
A: Yes. For example if a Land Raider Crusader is
destroyed by ramming an enemy vehicle, its embarked
passengers would not be able to launch an assault in
the ensuing Assault phase as they would no longer
benefit from its Assault Vehicle special rule

Hardly a damning ruling, especialy when they label it as a 'rules change' and is how most folks I know all play it.

At the time of the so called nerf of ATSKNF, there were two strong points in the debate.
Each side had good arguements, the INAT took the weaker one as neither could be proved at that time (pre FAQ)
I found that to be a good call, yes many people didn't agree, but a fair call at that time.

[Chapters Unwritten]

There was not a strong argument. ATSKNF made it perfectly clear that you did not count as moving, and by extension that models could move as normal. People were irate that marines could get a 9" move after falling back and auto-regrouping.

It would be a lot simplier if that rule was worded differently, of course, but the rule has hardly changed in years; the intention was clear from the onset; the entire debate was ann easter egg hunt.

This is disregarding that most of the INAT questions aren't actually frequently asked, at least in my experience. Saying you use INAT is just as likely to keep people away from your event as it is to make them comfortable at it.

Don't forget the main guy who organizes those FAQs is the same guy GW let write their FAQs for a little while before he made so many bad rulings they had to wipe out his work and redo it the following month.

[Seattledv8]

That old chestnut, heh will that never die?
Jon 'Yakface' Regul never, at any time, wrote FAQ's for GW.
What did happen is GW used the INATs questions for several FAQ's.
Thus the reason for the thank you note on many FAQs
The answers were written by GW(in many cases different from the INAT)
If there were any bad calls they are GW's and theirs alone.

[Lord Inquisitor]

Emphasis mine. Real rule says no such thing.

You're right! That's not 40K any more!

... It's astoundingly rare that this would come into play (death and glory is the only situation I can think of). It seems a reasonable change to make, after all, why should the vehicle exploding actually be an advantage! They are still "getting out of" the vehicle even if not by the doors. I cannot imagine that even space marines could extricate themselves from burning wreckage and maintain the impetus of a charge when they could not do the same from the rear disembarkation ramp of a rhino.

The previous iteration of the INAT also nerfed ATSKNF.

A ruling that went along with the way that the vast majority of players actually played it, though.

There have been INAT rulings I didn't agree with but ultimately anyone's opinion of rules issues is never going to satisfy everyone. If they go with strict slavish RAW, they will get accused of not adhering to the spirit of the rules, if they make clarifications and changes, suddenly there are accusations of making up their own game, as if such incredibly specific situations make a big difference.

Saying you use INAT is just as likely to keep people away from your event as it is to make them comfortable at it.

People are going to boycott an event purely because the judges say they're going to use a particular resource for impartial answers?

[don_mondo]

It says in the rulebook that if you are already in close combat with a squad and someone else charges in on you that you have to swing at the squad you were already in close combat with. Where is this corrected at in any ruling?

No, that's not what it says. Reread the rules and the FAQs.

[Chapters Unwritten]

You're right! That's not 40K any more!

... It's astoundingly rare that this would come into play (death and glory is the only situation I can think of). It seems a reasonable change to make, after all, why should the vehicle exploding actually be an advantage! They are still "getting out of" the vehicle even if not by the doors.

Getting out of" a vehicle is not a thing you can do. Disembarking is. The models do not disembark into the crater. It may seem strict but the overall point I'm trying to make is that reading the rules provides a clear answer and things like INAT changed it because they wanted to not because it was required. Search this forum and tell me how many threads came up on this subject, for example.

I cannot imagine that even space marines could extricate themselves from burning wreckage and maintain the impetus of a charge when they could not do the same from the rear disembarkation ramp of a rhino.

The way it is played in my area, people who are forced out of vehicles which are wrecks and not craters assault afterward all the time. This is why Land Raider deathstars work so well; you kill the vehicle and the unit then mauls you afterward.

A ruling that went along with the way that the vast majority of players actually played it, though.

Neither you, I, nor yakface are qualified to say what the majority of players do. Even so, the rule says otherwise. Again, my point is that this did not require and FAQ, as you can read the rule and come to a conclusion. If it is the way a majority of players do it, there wouldn't have been such a debate.

There have been INAT rulings I didn't agree with but ultimately anyone's opinion of rules issues is never going to satisfy everyone. If they go with strict slavish RAW, they will get accused of not adhering to the spirit of the rules, if they make clarifications and changes, suddenly there are accusations of making up their own game, as if such incredibly specific situations make a big difference.

A clarification is going to universally be welcomed, I think - so long as a reason is supplied. I miss the older GW FAQs where they would give you answer, and then give you a reason why they came to that conclusion. A previous version of the INAT actually had a passage where [Rules Change] was justified because some of the rules are "Just plain ridiculous!"

People are going to boycott an event purely because the judges say they're going to use a particular resource for impartial answers?

It happens pretty regularly around here. My group actually was going to do a joint event and unanimously decided to not go forward with the whole idea because the store in question would not allow us to resolve rules disputes (which, as I said already, we have an excellent history of) and instead wanted us to use the INAT.

[Sami]

For the love of god please stop changing the colour of your text - not everyone uses the black background theme you know.

[Seattledv8]

Really, if you keep using that color I'm going to boycott this thread!
Heh

[don_mondo]

It happens pretty regularly around here. My group actually was going to do a joint event and unanimously decided to not go forward with the whole idea because the store in question would not allow us to resolve rules disputes (which, as I said already, we have an excellent history of) and instead wanted us to use the INAT.

Sounds like a store that wants their customers to know what to expect, unlike having your 'group' making the rules calls based on unknown criteria. Personally, I do not agree with all the INAT FAQs (even the INAT group that makes the rulings is not unanimous on all of them), but I'd rather have that than have to walk into a tourney blind, not knowing what kind of ridiculous calls the TO might make. And I've seen more than a few over the years. Bottom line, it's better to have something than nothing.

[Theocracity]

Sounds like a store that wants their customers to know what to expect, unlike having your 'group' making the rules calls based on unknown criteria. Personally, I do not agree with all the INAT FAQs (even the INAT group that makes the rulings is not unanimous on all of them), but I'd rather have that than have to walk into a tourney blind, not knowing what kind of ridiculous calls the TO might make. And I've seen more than a few over the years. Bottom line, it's better to have something than nothing.

This. Any TO will make rulings that are seen as questionable, overreaching or just plain dumb. INAT allows the players to know what those calls will be ahead of time so it doesn't screw them.

[Chapters Unwritten]

Sounds like a store that wants their customers to know what to expect, unlike having your 'group' making the rules calls based on unknown criteria. Personally, I do not agree with all the INAT FAQs (even the INAT group that makes the rulings is not unanimous on all of them), but I'd rather have that than have to walk into a tourney blind, not knowing what kind of ridiculous calls the TO might make. And I've seen more than a few over the years. Bottom line, it's better to have something than nothing.

Not exactly. Just because some TOs handle things poorly doesn't mean that you should just hand the reigns over to any old person who comes along as though following their suggestions is any more haphazard than following the ones of any other TO.

We don't have unknown criteria; as I already mentioned, you can solve virtually any question by looking at the rules in question. Most of the time when there is something that does need clarifying, it is something the players should clarify, at least in my opinion. Like the drop pod ruling...all the INAT says is basically, here are some guidelines to figure it out...as though a guy who glued all is drop pods shut hasn't already run into that issue.

If you want to use it, by all means. But I do not think its necessary at all, and have run many events without it. The questions in it have always seemed more like the random musings of the authors rather than any actual Frequently asked questions. It's good to have but it's hardly impartial, the authors of it are as susceptible to anything that any other TO is...but they will not be able to cover the most asked questions, the ones about the custom missions and rules that are part of many organizers' plans.

[Chapters Unwritten]

And by the way, if there is ever not a really obvious or clear answer, the only REAL impartial answer is the one we use: 4-up it.

[don_mondo]

Ya know, it doesn't matter. I'll never attend one of your events given the ocean between us. Personally, I'd rather have a written and posted FAQ than rely on the judgement of an unknown TO. And I've been on the TO side of the house, running/judging tourneys for the last 10+ years (including GW US GTs and US Games Day tourneys). So oddly enough, I do think that I know what I'm talking about. But hey, your tourney, your call. And most tourney players HATE a judge that says to 4+ it. I know I do. Make a call, right or wrong, but make a call.

[Seattledv8]

4+ing is the best way I know to competely destroy a tourneys credibilty.
No one will trust you after that.
It is a horrible way to deal with a rules issue.
All it shows is a complete lack of backbone.
A judge must make a ruling, anything less is a cowards act.
You might as well roll a dice at the start of the game, 4+ I win.
Totally ridiculous.

And seeing as we have people from Adepticon, Jwolf from Bols (Wargamescon) and Mike 'MVBrandt' Brandt from the Nova Open all as part of the panel of the INAT ( three of the biggest and most respected tourneys in the USA) I somehow trust their judgement over your little group.

[Mondobot]

To those saying the INAT is not impartial, eh? If no one at the tournament wrote any of it, it is impartial. Even if you do not like all the rulings at least the competitors have a universal guide to what will happen in a given situation. This is the fundamental reason for a tournament FAQ over a judge making up rulings on the spot.

[Chapters Unwritten]

Ehh, I respectfully disagree with all of the above. For one, it puts far too much power in the hands of one group of people. For two, unless your council is made up of players from every army, then there will always be a slant. That's reality of human nature.

The idea of 4+ being a bad idea is so idiotic I don't know where to begin. Throughout the whole discussion it's all about being impartial and the random selection of two equally legal results is the only true impartial way to keep a judge's personal thoughts out of the equation. But now it's suddenly spineless to not risk making a poor decision? Please. This only confirms what I have always thought - INAT is done up by an opinionated crew who think that writing up a elaborate document to answer a series of questions that are fairly obvious to any competent player with the books on hand to check makes them some kind of authority.

The 4+ provision, incidentally, has never had to be used by my people, because we have been able to answer every question by looking at the rules in involved, literally every time this has come up this edition. In no case have we ever had take a judgment call for standard rules, only ones we wrote ourselves for our missions. Which something like INAT wouldn't help with anyway.

Perhaps it is time for there to be a more democratic option as an alternative to the INAT.

[DoctorTom]

We don't have unknown criteria

If you haven't put out a FAQ to let people know what the answers to their questions are, then it is unknown criteria, at least to the people who are going to play in your tournament. With the published INAT FAQ, people will know what the rulings are beforehand and know what to expect.

Ehh, I respectfully disagree with all of the above. For one, it puts far too much power in the hands of one group of people. For two, unless your council is made up of players from every army, then there will always be a slant. That's reality of human nature.

Then again, the rournament people make the choice of whether to use the INAT FAQ or to make up their own. That doesn't put "far too much power" in their hands at all. If you want something different, then put together something different. For that matter, your people could use the INAT as a start, figure out which answers you don't like, change them and publish that as a FAQ for your tournament (making sure to acknowledge the INAT team for their input).

The idea of 4+ being a bad idea is so idiotic I don't know where to begin.

Then don't, since your comment is wrong. You don't have tournament judges there to roll a die, you have them there to make a judgment. Supposedly, an impartial judgment. If you have multiple judges, you want the rulings to be the same all the time. Just having people roll a d6 is going to be inconsistent as you have it happen at multiple tables and get the opposite results. Having the inconsistency is idiotic.

Perhaps it is time for there to be a more democratic option as an alternative to the INAT.

That's fine. Back with 4th edition we had been developing Warseer FAQs. It certainly wasn't official. If you want to set up something like that again, knock yourself out. For that matter, visit GW Headquarters and try to cajole, bribe or whatever to get new FAQs as soon as possible after 6th ed is out, and try to have them make it as complete as possible. (Good luck.)

As it is now, the INAT is an official FAQ for Adepticon, and is often used by other tournament organizers. If you don't like it, that's fine, but it doesn't mean people are wrong for going ahead and using their FAQs in their own games or tournaments.

I also find it hard to belive that your group has never had to make judgment calls for standard rules, when there have been multiple times in the rules threads we have seen that RAW doesn't cover the situation. I'm willing to bet you're claiming that you're using "common sense" or something similar to cover some of the situations and ignoring that it's actually a judgement call, whether a reasonable one or not.

[don_mondo]

For one, it puts far too much power in the hands of one group of people. For two, unless your council is made up of players from every army, then there will always be a slant. That's reality of human nature.

But of course, your little group is above all that..........................................

I think all the points that need to be made have been.
You don't like the INAT, even as a starting point for building your own FAQs.
You don't think a tournament should have a published FAQ cause your little group already knows all the answers.
You think a 4+ is an acceptable answer for a rules judge to make (course, that conflicts with the second point......................)

I'm done and outta here.

[Chapters Unwritten]

It has nothing to o with my group; the answers are in the books. Any ones that aren't should be dealt with by the players. And I have yet to see one reach that point, either in events I've run or attended. I haven't ever seen someone need what happens when a vehicle explodes explained to them, for example. Has anyone even got a story of this document even needing to be referenced? I sure don't.

I will always advocate the books as written as a starting point before any singular document. The books = the real rules. INAT = some people's' opinions on the rules. And in this game opinions are always biased.

If you want to think I'm a ********* for that feel free. I think presuming one knows better than the inventors of the game on their intentions is a bit higher up on the scale, though.

[Lord Inquisitor]

Neither you, I, nor yakface are qualified to say what the majority of players do. Even so, the rule says otherwise. Again, my point is that this did not require and FAQ, as you can read the rule and come to a conclusion. If it is the way a majority of players do it, there wouldn't have been such a debate.

Given that the INAT FAQ is the official FAQ for Adepticon, one of the largest tournaments out there, yes, I would say they have a good basis to see what questions come up in tournament play.

Yes, there is a debate when "how most people play it" meets "actual rules as written". I'm WFB player these days, so forgive me another WFB example, but cannons have a screwy mechanic where you have to draw LOS to the bounce point, not the actual "target". Most people just trace LOS from cannon to target, and nominate a number of points in front of the cannon. Playing by the strict letter of the rule results in all sorts of weird results (a lumbering monster can be shielded by a tiny hedge, because the cannon can't see the point in front, conversely you can bounce a cannonball off the top of a hill to strike at a lone target well out of sight behind the hill). The rules are clear, but they're (A) not how the majority of players in my experience play it and (B) bloody stupid.

Even though this is an area without actual rules confusion, it is nevertheless a source of conflict between players as RAW meets GAP. I would be okay with a ruling that said you simply nominate a number of inches away from a visible target because that means more fluid gameplay and a requirement that a cannon see its target, which is really a good thing.

Another example comes from last years' Ard Boyz (WFB again). The rules had a kill points scenario with a modified kill points system for WFB. One pair of opponents had the dispute brought to the judge that one player had tabled the opponent, but both had scored the same number of kill points (the winning player had vastly more kill points to begin with). The judge, unable to find a rule that stated that tabling your opponent equaled an automatic win (as there is in 40K), ruled in favour of the draw, which in his defence was RAW. This wasn't received well at all by many of the players there, not least the guy who crushed his opponent and received only a draw.

In this case, I think it was a question that came up a lot (whether exploded troops could assault). The RAW is clear but this isn't a satisfying rules resolution. Hence the rule change. I think the ability to judge a particular question in the most fair and reasonable way contains the prerogative to rule in favour of RAI or GAP and close RAW loopholes.

It happens pretty regularly around here. My group actually was going to do a joint event and unanimously decided to not go forward with the whole idea because the store in question would not allow us to resolve rules disputes (which, as I said already, we have an excellent history of) and instead wanted us to use the INAT.

This makes no sense to me at all. Firstly, a rules dispute is just that - a dispute. If both players agree to a certain resolution to those relatively rare rules conflicts that aren't addressed by rulebook or GW FAQ, that's their business. Secondly, I think it's pretty sad that you decided to scrap an event not because of comp or any other restrictions, but just because of whether or not you'd have to use a FAQ? I'm amazed.