Tournament FAQs

[Bergen Beerbelly]

My LGS owner used to go to quite a few Ard Boyz tournaments and some of the bigger tournaments and he despises the INAT FAQ because they often nerf an army more than it should be nerfed. Even though in other areas they seem to power up the same army.

His solution when he runs tournaments is the solution given in the main rule book. If a rules dispute arises and neither person can agree as to how the rule should be read they roll a dice and the person with the higher roll is the one that gets his way...but only for that one time. If the same rule comes up again, they roll again.

It seems to work fine and doesn't require hours of digging through rules to try to find the answer.

[Theocracity]

My LGS owner used to go to quite a few Ard Boyz tournaments and some of the bigger tournaments and he despises the INAT FAQ because they often nerf an army more than it should be nerfed. Even though in other areas they seem to power up the same army.

His solution when he runs tournaments is the solution given in the main rule book. If a rules dispute arises and neither person can agree as to how the rule should be read they roll a dice and the person with the higher roll is the one that gets his way...but only for that one time. If the same rule comes up again, they roll again.

It seems to work fine and doesn't require hours of digging through rules to try to find the answer.

The problem with that in big tournaments is that two players, faced with the same rules dispute, could have completely different rulings from the judge based on that dice. And if that ruling determines whether or not you advance, you could be pretty bitter that someone else got better treatment out of the same situation.

INAT's rulings can be just as stupid or balance-changing as the on the fly rulings by of a judge. The advantage is if the players know the way a ruling will go ahead of time they can play based on that, and obviate the need for a dispute at all (which can save players who would be screwed by making tactical decisions based on their own understandings of the rules).

The BRB's dispute resolution is fine for friendly games or small tourneys. But bigger events benefit from having the work done ahead of time.

[Chapters Unwritten]

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.

You can't know what questions are going to come up other than through general gameplay, and general gameplay is only the business of the two players in the game itself. People who are feeling the itch to play competitively rarely also do not have the slightest idea how to play it when someone glues their drop pod doors shut, for example.

I have actually compiled a much lesser FAQ that allowed us to do a couple of team-based events that used the Kill Team rules, but again, that was necessary entirely because of the major changes to gameplay and how a lot of units work (like squads of psykers....ugh, that was a pain). But I have never done anything on the scale of INAT. To my mind, that only reinforces my point: major events use INAT as a shield, to make sure they have something they can point to and avoid the bad karma of a poor judgment call. INAT is used because it exists in a class by itself, not because it is at all viable or necessary. As I have said, the INAT's supposed usefulness is far preceded by how seldomly it needs to be consulted at events.

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).

This is certainly true. I would not use the INAT as a start, however, because it does not answer any questions I think a competent reasonable and experienced player would necessarily have. It is always rulebook+codex, or GW FAQ that has answered our every question, and tourney's unique missions are where most questions requiring TO input arrive. INAT does little to deal with this, as does any broad-spectrum FAQ that is not taking those custom missions into account. I would much rather encourage players to consult the actual rules than waste time creating a redundant FAQ, is all.

Lately, we have been solid in our assumptions in lieu of quick FAQs too - it only takes a little bit of common sense. As a perfect example, the Necron FAQ thread that popped up here the week the Necron dex came out, was full of questions the book answered.

INAT and things like it are convenient for people who don't read their rules. That is not behavior I like to encourage in a competitive environment.

I would feel a bit better about it if the doc's questions were more democratically elected. When I read the INAT, I feel like it answers tons of questions no one is asking.

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.

That is dependent entirely on the argument.

I had this argument once where two players argued one made a charge and one didn't. One guy's measuring tape had a magnet on the end of it, making it difficult to see where it began and ended; we're talking a matter of fractions of millimeters here. The other guy was certain his opponent could not make the charge, and was aggravated because the assaulting player is a guy known for bad sportsmanship.

After looking at it, I told them "the only fair way to tell is to 4-up it." They both were upset, but as I said, it could not be determined by anyone who looked at it who was right and wrong because of the positions of the models involved (one tilted on a piece of rubble, such that the exact position of his base couldn't be accurately seen without displacing him.

The guy known for his attitude protested that it wasn't fair. I told him "If I say you get the assault, I send him to a loss. If I say you don't get the assault, you don't contest and you lose. It's the only fair way to anyone to let the dice decide." He protested some more, saying "How is that fair?" It was at that point that I let him know the person he was playing was not only a member of my club and an officer, but a best friend since childhood. Then I reminded him of his reputation. I said, "I'm only human. Who do you think I'd be more likely do do a favor for?" After that, he let me roll the die. And he got his way, and won. Only random chance is truly impartial.

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 was only trying to let the guy know that saying you use INAT can open up some bad doors. Say, for example, INAT gets updated and they tinker with some rules. A guy can show up to an event with that in hand, to a roomful of people who do not realize the rules have magically changed, and cause a lot of debate.

Like when someone's vehicle explodes with the current one, for example. If a guy pulls out the rulebook and shows you the real rule, it directly contradicts the INAT. If that happens then you look pretty stupid, depending which way your crowd slants; people who live by the INAT won't mind, people who came to your tournament not aware of it are going to be rather irritated by it. Which is precisely why we don't use it: 1.) we haven't needed such a thing, and 2.) it could change something at any moment in drastic contrast to our local players' opinions.

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.

It's not necessarily a matter of common sense, or any other trickery. We just plain don't encounter these problems, or our players resolve them amongst themselves by pulling out the rulebook and codex involved (as we encourage).

We obviously haven't ever done anything on the scale of Adepticon, perhaps not even the largest events among my local population, but the principle is the same: if players can amicably resolve a problem there is no need for a TO, and if the rules do not have a clear answer then the situation can't fairly be "given" to one side of the argument by a judge who hasn't even really been a part of the game the players are in the midst of.

At least, that's my take. My goal has been to eliminate the need for judges and FAQs. Very different from most people's in the role of event planning, I assume. Most events want a tight controlled experience but for our purposes I have always wanted players to have a fun, worthwhile experience and if two players in a tight matchup are willing to go "I'll give it to you," rather than pitch a bitch-fit I'd much rather the former than the latter.

[Bergen Beerbelly]

The problem with that in big tournaments is that two players, faced with the same rules dispute, could have completely different rulings from the judge based on that dice. And if that ruling determines whether or not you advance, you could be pretty bitter that someone else got better treatment out of the same situation.

INAT's rulings can be just as stupid or balance-changing as the on the fly rulings by of a judge. The advantage is if the players know the way a ruling will go ahead of time they can play based on that, and obviate the need for a dispute at all (which can save players who would be screwed by making tactical decisions based on their own understandings of the rules).

The BRB's dispute resolutions fine for friendly games or small tourneys. But bigger events benefit from having the work done ahead of time. M

Yes, I completely agree. And I was just stating how my LGS owner does it. Sometimes I don't agree with what the INAT FAQ says, especially when it contradicts what the rules actually do say, as in the case of Howling Banshee masks and two farseers with Runes of Warding on the board but I can't change a TO's mind when I'm at a tournament. so I'll use whatever method they have, wether that's INAT FAQ or roll off for it.

[Theocracity]

At least, that's my take. My goal has been to eliminate the need for judges and FAQs. Very different from most people's in the role of event planning, I assume. Most events want a tight controlled experience but for our purposes I have always wanted players to have a fun, worthwhile experience and if two players in a tight matchup are willing to go "I'll give it to you," rather than pitch a bitch-fit I'd much rather the former than the latter.

I can't quote most of your arguments since I'm on a phone, but I think this is the crux that distinguishes the points of view.

It's a very nice goal to have everyone get along, play the game for fun, and become enlightened gamers. But you simply can not do that at a large tournament. There will be lots of people there who you don't know personally, who will not necessarily have enlightened ideas about rules disputes (and I'm talking actual RAW disputes, not measuring problems). These people may have paid a lot of money to travel to the event, and have their eyes on the prizes and recognition that come from winning, and if their game balances on their interpretation versus the other player's they may not just be in it for the fun and be happy with a 50/50 chance that they will outright lose.

Get enough people angry like that and your tournament starts to lose players, and you start to lose money. Is that better for the game in general? Maybe. But not for you personally, who probably spends a lot of effort and money setting up the event.

So you do what professionals do. You set the rules ahead of time, and stick to them even if they're stupid. It may be hiding behind a shield, but that's why the shield is there; to protect the people who run it, and pre-inform the people who play (so hopefully they never need to consult it, because they know what it will say). That's why every professional company makes you sign an EULA agreement, after all.

The FAQ trickles down to smaller events because people like to play the same way in smaller games that they do for larger games. You can do your own thing, but you should understand why people use it. You have worthwhile goals, but understand that they don't scale very well.

[Bergen Beerbelly]

I gotta say though if the INAT FAQ screwed me because they decided a rule went a different way than the actual rule says it does, I'd be just as hacked as if I rolled a dice for it. The result is the same. You go to a tournament expecting a rule to work a certain way and the INAT FAQ people decide it doesn't work that way?...wow...that's my biggest beef with the INAT FAQ.

Putting out a FAQ that tackles some of the issues where rules are not written clearly I can understand, but changing rules to fit the way you see them instead of the way they really are is just house ruling and that is just as bad for the tournament scene as a roll off.

[Theocracity]

I gotta say though if the INAT FAQ screwed me because they decided a rule went a different way than the actual rule says it does, I'd be just as hacked as if I rolled a dice for it. The result is the same. You go to a tournament expecting a rule to work a certain way and the INAT FAQ people decide it doesn't work that way?...wow...that's my biggest beef with the INAT FAQ.

But that's why you read the INAT FAQ before you go to the tourney - so you don't make tactical decisions based on a ruling that won't go in your favor. I imagine it's a lot worse when your whole plan falls apart due to a dice roll rather than knowing ahead of time that you shouldn't be using that plan.

Is the ruling stupid or unbalanced? Maybe. But at least you know what it will be ahead of time rather than finding out mid-game.

[Bergen Beerbelly]

And if they change the INAT FAQ while you are driving to the tournament with lists and models in hand?...That has happened to me twice...I drive an hour and a half to get to my tournaments and twice the INAT FAQ changed during that time. Once changing an actual rule so that it benefitted me, once so that it screwed me.

If they had just gone by the actual RAW then there would have been no question. But sometimes the INAT FAQ changes things just because someone on their council doesn't like the way it works by RAW. So TO's go by it simply because it's in the INAT FAQ, not because it's the actual way the rule works. So you build an army to use the rules the way they actually work, bring the army to a tournament, and find out it doesn't work because a group of guys somewhere else say it doesn't even though the rules clearly say it does?

Like I said, that's my personal biggest problem with INAT FAQ's.

[Mr Zoat]

Surely if its a rule change then its an errata and not an FAQ?

[don_mondo]

My LGS owner used to go to quite a few Ard Boyz tournaments and some of the bigger tournaments and he despises the INAT FAQ because they often nerf an army more than it should be nerfed. Even though in other areas they seem to power up the same army.

His solution when he runs tournaments is the solution given in the main rule book. If a rules dispute arises and neither person can agree as to how the rule should be read they roll a dice and the person with the higher roll is the one that gets his way...but only for that one time. If the same rule comes up again, they roll again.

It seems to work fine and doesn't require hours of digging through rules to try to find the answer.

So all I have to do is disagree and I get a chance to have my way based on a die roll? Yeah, right, there's a reason this is a stupid solution............................

[Bergen Beerbelly]

@Mr Zoat..nope...in one case it is an FAQ on the INAT FAQ and in the other it is an interpretation of a GW FAQ that obviously isn't RAW.

@ Don_Mondo...no...you have to disagree and provide proof in the rulebook of how it can be seen differently. If you just disagree to disagree without providing an alternate reading of the rule that is actually plausable then no, you wouldn't get to roll off. It's not like people are disagreeing on a rule just to get a roll off. The guy isn't so stupid as to allow people to do that. You have to have a concrete disagreement backed up by a rule that is purposely ambiguous so as to cause the disagreement in the first place.

Oh, and the roll off is the way the main rule book tells you to handle situations like that anyway. GW even states in their FAQ pages that FAQ's are NOT official. Therefore you are not officially bound to abide by them. But you ARE officially bound to abide by the main rule book. If you don't then you are playing house rules. That's basically what INAT FAQ's are...house rules that certain groups of tournaments have decided to abide by.

[don_mondo]

@ Don_Mondo...no...you have to disagree and provide proof in the rulebook of how it can be seen differently. If you just disagree to disagree without providing an alternate reading of the rule that is actually plausable then no, you wouldn't get to roll off. It's not like people are disagreeing on a rule just to get a roll off. The guy isn't so stupid as to allow people to do that. You have to have a concrete disagreement backed up by a rule that is purposely ambiguous so as to cause the disagreement in the first place.

Oh, and the roll off is the way the main rule book tells you to handle situations like that anyway. GW even states in their FAQ pages that FAQ's are NOT official. Therefore you are not officially bound to abide by them. But you ARE officially bound to abide by the main rule book. If you don't then you are playing house rules. That's basically what INAT FAQ's are...house rules that certain groups of tournaments have decided to abide by.

Oh, if I'm disagreeing it has a basis in the rules. In spite of what CU says (and unless you're part of his group, you really can't say what he would or would not allow, now can you? And if you are part of his group, well, partisan politics, hey?), there are a great many grey areas in them. So if I were that WAAC player and I wanted to try to take advantage of one of those grey areas, all I have to do is disagree (even tho I KNOW that I'm actually wrong) and I still have a chance to get my incorrect interpretation of the rule in play. IMO, that's stupid. I've judged many tourneys over the years, and I can only remember a couple of times where the rule was so ambiguous that I suggested a roll-off. Judges are there for a reason. Be a man, make the call. Rolling off is fine for a friendly beer and pretzels game but has no place in a competitive environment.

As for the FAQs not being official, sure, they're not. Ever been to a tournament that says they're not going to use the GW FAQs? I haven't. And somehow I doubt I ever will. For one thing, if they're not using them, I'm not attending as now I have no idea what kind of idiocy they're going to pull out of their ...............

And that's what it all boils down to. Your players have a reasonable expectation to know how any particular question is going to be answered. If you're not going to put out your own FAQ or a forum link/email where players can post questions, well, that's what I would consider a poorly run event. But maybe I have high expectations.

So don't like the INAT, fine, don't use it. But provide some sort of venue for players planning to attend to ask questions.

[DoctorTom]

You can't know what questions are going to come up other than through general gameplay...,

which, given the number of people playing each year at Adepticaon (and at the other major conventions whose organizers are on the team which helps develop the INAT FAQ), they have seen quite a lot of gameplay, and have developed the FAQ to handle all the questions that come up. You can be sure that if there's a question that hasn't been covered yet, it would be covered in the next year's FAQ.

and general gameplay is only the business of the two players in the game itself.

Not in a tournament, if there's prizes. Then, it's the business of everyone entered into the tournament as well as running it as to how rules questions and rules disputes are handled.

To my mind, that only reinforces my point: major events use INAT as a shield, to make sure they have something they can point to and avoid the bad karma of a poor judgment call. INAT is used because it exists in a class by itself, not because it is at all viable or necessary. As I have said, the INAT's supposed usefulness is far preceded by how seldomly it needs to be consulted at events.

Actually, major events use INAT as an impartial way to settle the disputes. That doesn't make it a shield. As for your last point, you obviously overlook the fact that by having the FAQ out there for everyone to familiarize themselves with, they'll know how the rulings go and therefore don't need to consult it as much at events - they already know how to handle it.

I would feel a bit better about it if the doc's questions were more democratically elected. When I read the INAT, I feel like it answers tons of questions no one is asking.

No one is asking them now at the tournaments because they read the FAQ beforehand and know how to handle it. And, how would you propose to have a more "democratically elected" group for developing the FAQ? You have people who organize several of the major tournaments involved with the FAQ - they certainly have an interest in having a useful FAQ. You sound like you're just upset that you're not on the board making the decisions.

Like when someone's vehicle explodes with the current one, for example. If a guy pulls out the rulebook and shows you the real rule, it directly contradicts the INAT.

Okay, you've said this several times and I'm going to call you out on it. What part of the FAQ contradicts the rule? Following standard wound allocation? The rules for exploding vehicles only mention taking hits - they don't say anything else about how to resolve the hits. Following the normal process for converting hits to wounds is as valid an interpretation as having the models themselves take any wounds. As for getting cover saves, counting the origin as the exploding vehicle, that makes perfect sense.

[Nurgling Chieftain]

"Perfect" rules interpretation, as an ideal, probably doesn't even exist. INAT isn't perfect - it can't be - but as a rules source, it's quite a bit better than, let's say, Chapters Unwritten, whose interpretations can be lacking in perspective.

[Chapters Unwritten]

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.

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?

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?

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.

No one is asking them now at the tournaments because they read the FAQ beforehand and know how to handle it. And, how would you propose to have a more "democratically elected" group for developing the FAQ? You have people who organize several of the major tournaments involved with the FAQ - they certainly have an interest in having a useful FAQ. You sound like you're just upset that you're not on the board making the decisions.

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. It has been a long time that the scene has been in need of change, INAT is just one more big wall around the castle of the old style in that regard. The INAT isn't solving major event organizers' problems; Adepticon did not grind to a halt because people had no idea what to do if they had doors on their drop pods. All it does is answer redundant questions anyone can discern by looking right at the books. So I ask you why is it so insane and foolish of me to think that people at an event ought to be in the habit of checking their books before they cry foul and make a TO come over? I know tourney players who have made a career out of throwing tantrums and being difficult JUST on the grounds that a TO might rule in their favor, even.

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. As for jealousy, I'm afraid not. Between being a document designer and a computer person by trade I could produce a comparable or higher quality document overnight; the only reason I haven't is because my group does not require such a thing and, to be blunt, neither does the rest of the community that actually reads its books. As for my democracy complaint, rest assured, I want no part of that team; those guys are what's wrong with this game, not the stick by which its measures are weighed. What I meant by democractic option is an FAQ where the questions are actually asked by players.

If you enjoy babysitting that is well and good. The fact of the matter is most people use the methods I employ, and I for one would walk right out of any event where I had my codex and rulebook and the other guy just quoted a rule summary off the top of his head and asked a TO their opinion. My method ensures the core rules - and the value of sportsmanship - are a part of the process. INAT doesn't.

Do any of you even have an example where it has been used to resolve a dispute? It is used by the most major store in my area and I have not seen them have to refer to it once.

(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).

[Theocracity]

I think this entire argument can be summed up with the following statement:

Big tournaments exist, and they require defined rules like INAT in order to function properly. Smaller groups do not require INAT, and can get by on individual rules interpretations or dice rolls. People who want to play at big tournaments often want to us INAT at the smaller groups, because they want to practice with the same rules set. The tension this can cause is unfortunate for the small groups, but it's unrealistic to pretend that the big tournaments could function without such tools.

Edit: As a corollary, it doesn't matter how inaccurate INAT is for the purposes of this argument. Its virtue is the size of Adepticon. If another, larger tournament came along and made their own FAQ, you can guarantee it will be as inaccurate as INAT (or a local TO's random ruling, or a 4+).

[Lord Inquisitor]

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.

Which translates as: players can comb the books for the most ridiculous RAW arguments, expecting their interpretation to work 50% of the time, rather than the judge making a reasonable interpretation.

Do any of you even have an example where it has been used to resolve a dispute? It is used by the most major store in my area and I have not seen them have to refer to it once.

Sure. I've not played 40K competitively for a while, but for a long time the INATFAQs were used as standard in my area. The resolution is official FAQ -> INAT FAQ -> call a judge. This has on many occasions allowed us to not call a judge or indeed not get into the dispute at all - particularly a while ago before GW issued the last big batch of 40K FAQs. Off the top of my head, their clarifications on movement and cover have been very useful simply as a guideline. Typically, if both players are up on their rules, their FAQs and the INATFAQ then you won't see a lot of reference to the books - both players will know how each issue can be resolved should it arise and the game runs that much more smoothly.

[Chapters Unwritten]

Which translates as: players can comb the books for the most ridiculous RAW arguments, expecting their interpretation to work 50% of the time, rather than the judge making a reasonable interpretation.

But that is not what has happened. As I already mentioned, all it has done (in combination of our specialized scoring system) is keep people who do that sort of thing from coming to our events at all. It has been a great success on this small scale and I feel strongly that similar approaches could be a great success on large scales as well. Besides...from what I hear this is what a lot of the people who go to Adepticon and other big events do anyway. The INAT does not discourage this practice any more than my ideals encourage it.

I honestly do not consider the size of an event especially relevant outside of the simple logistics of only needing 1 TO vs. 15. Rules are rules and whether used by 10 tables of 40k or 100 tables of 40k they are still equally as applicable/breakable/forgettable/workable/etc. I can obviously see the benefit in creating a document to answer questions for such a scale but I see the same benefits for a document saying something more akin to my style as well.

I don't know how much clearer I can make this, but, the 4+ solution is used only in the event that a judgment cannot be reached by an event organizer. It isn't like we go around 4+ing every dispute, and we certainly don't encourage the players to do it first; it is a tool to be used when an interpretation of the rules' true function cannot be gleamed. For example, earlier in the thread someone mentioned what happens when an Eldar vibro cannon hits a squadron of vehicles. That, to me, isn't even all that tough a question, but we would make a call on it since the rules have wordings that can be interpreted.

Now, what it seems a lot of folks in this thread think I do, is just throw up my hands and go "Nope, 4+ it!" and walk away. That's not true at all. It is a tool for the (extremely, EXTREMELY rare) case where a ruling can't be reached. Which again, I point out, has not happened.

I would argue that the size of the tournament makes it all the more important for rules disputes to self-solve rather than need TO intervention but that is just my personal perspective, which surely differs from most here (I view current modern tournament infrastructure as archaic and marred by a complete lack of confidence in the game's rules as well as complete egomania by the organizers of these events). Also, my approach can be utilized for confusion about mission rules; the INAT and other static documents cannot.

My entire point with this whole thing is that the books have been solid enough that things like the INAT are no longer really 100% necessary. With 6th around the corner the need will arise anew, of course, but over time it too will settle and there will be little point again.

An FAQ of such renown should have the questions in it decided democratically anyway. While I appreciate it clarifying things movement and cover, the edition has been out for years now and those things hardly need clarifying.

[solkan]

My entire point with this whole thing is that the books have been solid enough that things like the INAT are no longer really 100% necessary.

That's completely hilarious, how much you're missing the point. Not to mention the fact that you seem to be conflating how well the rules are written with how strong the collective consensus about how the rules work.

For one thing, the point of having a FAQ is to be able to say, "That question is answered here, you do _____", without having to tie up game time or judges for rules arguments, whether or not the question is asked "frequently" or not. A question pops up, the answer is decided and written down. Then, the next time that answer pops up, you point out the prior decision and you have consistency. And because the decision is written down, people can look at the decisions and decide whether they are "fair" or not.

If you go by the unwritten consensus your your play group for rulings, anyone who comes into that group is going to be left without any basis for knowing whether the rulings will be fair (or whether they'll agree with them) or not.

New player Random Joe comes down to the store to play in the tournament. He has this idea about how the rules work, and during the tournament discovers that the organizer disagrees with some important point. This decision costs RJ the game, RJ's unhappy, RJ complains to the store owner that the tournament is run unfairly, and as a result the store owner becomes unhappy.

On the other hand, let's say that RJ's playing in a tournament with a FAQ and the same game losing disagreement arises. When the question of fairness comes up, the owner and the event organizer point to the FAQ. If the question was in the FAQ, it's now RJ vs. the FAQ that the event packet said everyone would be using. And if the question wasn't in the FAQ, it probably will be next time.

[Chapters Unwritten]

For one thing, the point of having a FAQ is to be able to say, "That question is answered here, you do _____", without having to tie up game time or judges for rules arguments, whether or not the question is asked "frequently" or not. A question pops up, the answer is decided and written down. Then, the next time that answer pops up, you point out the prior decision and you have consistency. And because the decision is written down, people can look at the decisions and decide whether they are "fair" or not.

We already have a document like this. It's called a rulebook.

If you go by the unwritten consensus your your play group for rulings, anyone who comes into that group is going to be left without any basis for knowing whether the rulings will be fair (or whether they'll agree with them) or not.

How can they be unfair? I've resolved any and ever dispute that's ever come up at my club with the main rulebook and codex rules. There is no unwritten concensus...if someone has a question, we look at the books and point out the conclusion.

New player Random Joe comes down to the store to play in the tournament. He has this idea about how the rules work, and during the tournament discovers that the organizer disagrees with some important point. This decision costs RJ the game, RJ's unhappy, RJ complains to the store owner that the tournament is run unfairly, and as a result the store owner becomes unhappy.

We all have a book that tells us how to play. It is not "the organizer disagrees with some important point" - it's that, his rules question, got answered by the book. At least how I run things.

On the other hand, let's say that RJ's playing in a tournament with a FAQ and the same game losing disagreement arises. When the question of fairness comes up, the owner and the event organizer point to the FAQ. If the question was in the FAQ, it's now RJ vs. the FAQ that the event packet said everyone would be using. And if the question wasn't in the FAQ, it probably will be next time.

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!