Brother Valerius Posted July 4, 2011 Author Share Posted July 4, 2011 . If everyone in the game you're playing agrees that a certain GW rule is stupid yes that does include me. Well, obviously you'd have to agree. what on earth do you gain by slavishly following it rather than agreeing to follow a different version? first of what? As what people gain. Clear rules . you go in to a shop or a local tournament and you know how stuff works and dont find out about it turn 3 of game 2 . are GW rules stupid and bad ? ask me what I think about the nid auras working different then any other aura or primas not being able to join spore units . But at least stuff is clear there is not "oh we let him use the upgraded rules for SS/TH " . also there is something people from english countries may not understand , but when you are using foreign language with rules , specialy when your language does not belong to the same group stuff has to be clear and for it to be clear RAW is the only way to do it . Does it mean that it sucks for some players ? yes it does . my brother had beastman army , when GW changed the number of models in ranks to get the rank bonus they "forgot" to FAQ beastman . army was made unplayable , but then again one could say it was his foult he didnt want to play chaos demons. You don't gain more clarity with your view. If you followed the codex only, sure. But anything beyond that (including GW's own FAQs), and you're imposing a set of additions to the rules that players may or may not be aware of. There's no reason that they would automatically be aware of the updated rules you are using simply because GW published them. In that respect, GW's FAQ is not superior to anyone else's (though you hold that it is). Rules are simply a social contract between the players, I think we have a different understanding of how law works . Rules are something enforced on people by rulers . There is no social contract , if there was something like that it would mean people are more or less equal , which by birth they are not. Well, aside from the obvious fundamental philosophical differences we have (because I do think people are more or less equal by birth), game rules are a different beast than the laws of a country. Laws are indeed harder to modify than game rules, with much higher consequences for ignoring them because you don't like them. But we're talking about game rules. I stand by what I said, that those are a social contract between the players and not something which is imposed from an authority. GW's rules are the default, but there is nothing that makes them inherently better than a different social contract that everyone discusses and agrees upon. How would you even enforce that ? It would mean that anyone with a higher social standing [or plain bigger] would enforce the rules he wants . A friend of the tournament org says rule X works in his favor and there would be nothing you could do about it . even with friendly games it would be the same , and then what pay for the table and quit [and look how the dude finds another opponent and plays against him when you paid for the use of the table 0_o] . That doesnt make sense at all . If someone wants better rules he plays a different system or the tournament organizeres make special scenarios , but changing rules for units or gear is a no go . It will always be done in favor of some players . Even scenarios are a slipery thing I remember some of the US ones that were punishing nids players,because tournament orgs said there was too many of them[or to be more precise that there was too many identical lists]. And while different lists arent in itself bad[in fact dexs with many possible builds are awesome] , what does it say in the background about the orgs ? buy a different army or you will get punished for your pick [at the same time no one was punishing elder for circus or sm gunlines]. It's really not that difficult to make it known in advance that at your Tournament Showdown of Ultimate Fate For Great Justice, you will be using some extra rules. This is particularly true in the case of something like the INAT FAQ, where you can simply publicize "We will be using the INAT FAQ" along with the tournament and people will be able to look at it for themselves without you even having to distribute your house rules that you plan to use. As far as your first point about changing the rules meaning that someone with more pull can modify things to their advantage, that's absolutely true. But it's true without any rule changing, too. Even if we say, "GW FAQ only", that doesn't stop an unjust TO from allowing his/her friends to gain a leg up. You think that a TO who would be willing to modify rules for their friend is going to punish their friend if that friend gets caught cheating? Heck no. If you have a dishonest player, and a TO willing to allow them to be dishonest, it will hurt you whether or not you ever change the rules of the game. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/233358-inat-faq-is-updated/page/2/#findComment-2809992 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leksington Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Personally, I can see the value of having a standardized set of rulings regarding the many many grey areas of the rules, even if I don't agree with all the rulings. But if you prefer to spend your time at the table arguing and rule lawyering... :P P.S. Shame on Europe for the ad hominem (I guess in this case it would be ad natio) logical fallacy when evaluating this faq. ;) Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/233358-inat-faq-is-updated/page/2/#findComment-2810134 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chapter Master Ignis Domus Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 I too, like the INAT, even if I disagree with some of the rulings. Having a comprehensive source of FAQ answers ahead of time is quite useful, both for judges, as they don't spend the entire time answering easily found rules questions, and for players, so you don't get any surprise rulings. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/233358-inat-faq-is-updated/page/2/#findComment-2810148 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Mage Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 The GW Faq not official statement also raises an eyebrow with me. I wonder if Valerian also considers the Codexes as not official? Hes quoting GW, stating that their FAQs are just their opinions, not something you actually need to follow if youd rather not. If we are to take anything GW says as official- when they say its not- we are left with a paradox. Paradox over a wargame is stupid. I think your snarky comment is completely off base here Spacefrisian. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/233358-inat-faq-is-updated/page/2/#findComment-2810175 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellios Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 I too, like the INAT, even if I disagree with some of the rulings. Having a comprehensive source of FAQ answers ahead of time is quite useful, both for judges, as they don't spend the entire time answering easily found rules questions, and for players, so you don't get any surprise rulings. If you know they are using the INAT that is cool... or if they have decided any answers to grey areas (or made any house rules) before the event they should publish them with the event documents (Obviously they cannot publish answers to issues they haven't dealt with before the event...)! However I would argue that the INAT isn't great for stopping surprise rulings if you don't know the INAT will be used because not only does the INAT give some odd rulings over grey areas but it also makes strange changes to rules where the rules are perfectly clear... and that would make me very angry if such a ruling was used in an event without prior warning. As for people being born equal... that might be a topic for another place far from here :P Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/233358-inat-faq-is-updated/page/2/#findComment-2810179 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chapter Master Ignis Domus Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 I don't run into that problem often, as the majority of tournaments state that they'll be using the INAT, GW FAQs, or whatever. Withthe clear rules becoming unclear, those normally don't come up in a game, as both will go for the clear interpretation, and hence won't consult the INAT ouija board. Problem solved. :D Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/233358-inat-faq-is-updated/page/2/#findComment-2810200 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellios Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 I don't run into that problem often, as the majority of tournaments state that they'll be using the INAT, GW FAQs, or whatever. Withthe clear rules becoming unclear, those normally don't come up in a game, as both will go for the clear interpretation, and hence won't consult the INAT ouija board. Problem solved. You assume the other player will not want to enforce the crazy INAT ruling. When you play in well run events with great people you don't have problems... It's when things are not run so well or you come against total gamesmen. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/233358-inat-faq-is-updated/page/2/#findComment-2810250 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chapter Master Ignis Domus Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 I suppose that's a possibility, but my opponents have been pretty good about it. Although that will probably change, now that I've said it. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/233358-inat-faq-is-updated/page/2/#findComment-2810277 Share on other sites More sharing options...
thade Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 I'm willing to give INAT a second chance...if suspicious that it won't change my mind. I'll study it and return here. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/233358-inat-faq-is-updated/page/2/#findComment-2810286 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Something Wycked Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 ◊GK.31C.02 – Q: Do multiple successful castings of‘Cleansing Flame’ by several Purifier units locked in the same assault have cumulative effects? A: Yes, each use of Cleansing Flame is cumulative within the same assault, but each instance of Cleansing Flame is resolved immediately when the psychic test is passed (i.e., all instances of Cleansing Flame are not resolved simultaneously) [clarification]. I remember a thread that got locked that blew up over just this question. From this clarification alone, I'm impressed by the INAT FAQ ^_^ +for europe there is whole US thing , any ruling made by an US tournament be it GW or not will offten be seen as wrong/bad/stupid , because those are not our kind of people . .... Well I'm certainly speechless. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/233358-inat-faq-is-updated/page/2/#findComment-2810445 Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLACK BLŒ FLY Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Overall I think they did a good job with the GK codex and they deserve some props for that effort. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/233358-inat-faq-is-updated/page/2/#findComment-2810462 Share on other sites More sharing options...
thade Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Their INAT BRB FAQ still strikes me as it did before...it needs work. There are a few places where it contradicts the BRB FAQ. Wouldn't be a big issue perhaps it if wasn't just announced that it was updated. ^_^ For example, it states that a model can use a single psychic power multiple times, provided it is not a psychic shooting attack (bottom of p9). It has promise, but as a whole it needs revision and attention. I understand that some people take the INAT to supercede or even replace GW's FAQ(s) (and even BRB in some cases) but that falls under "homebrew rules" by definition. Not a fault, necessarily, but not what I'm into. Were it brought inline with the FAQs it would be better. I do like parts of it (like it's clarifications on the shooting rules, for instance). Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/233358-inat-faq-is-updated/page/2/#findComment-2810485 Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffersonian000 Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Oddly enough, Yakface, who writes the INAT FAQ, also wrote several of the GW FAQ's, so there is at least a line of logic between this document and other past GW documents. SJ Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/233358-inat-faq-is-updated/page/2/#findComment-2810515 Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLACK BLŒ FLY Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 That's not true. G :lol: Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/233358-inat-faq-is-updated/page/2/#findComment-2810635 Share on other sites More sharing options...
boreas Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Well, he did collaborate and IIRC is thanked at the end of some FAQs. If not the lates, at the very least it happened when 5th ed. came out and GW issued a lot of FAQs. This very own forum also collaborated to the DH/WH FAQs. Phil Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/233358-inat-faq-is-updated/page/2/#findComment-2810642 Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilnar Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 The dark angels FAQ made me laugh, now don't get me wrong, I've got nothing against a tourney using a 3rd party FAQ, but I wouldn't recommend that one to any of the tourneys around here. Some of the judgements are just insane. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/233358-inat-faq-is-updated/page/2/#findComment-2810659 Share on other sites More sharing options...
thade Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Oddly enough, Yakface, who writes the INAT FAQ, also wrote several of the GW FAQ's, so there is at least a line of logic between this document and other past GW documents. SJ *Citation needed. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/233358-inat-faq-is-updated/page/2/#findComment-2810677 Share on other sites More sharing options...
boreas Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_Custom...unters_2009.pdf At the very end of the FAQ... The questions we have answered in our FAQs have beengathered from many sources. Some have been submitted by members of the public, others by representatives of the online gaming community and more still are the result of face to face meetings with keen and inquisitive players at a myriad of gaming events. Special thanks for raising many of the questions we have answered in this particular FAQ go to Jon Regul. Also: representatives of the online gaming community: That is mainly us, here at B&C. I had the chance to submit a list of questions to Andy Hoare who was kind enough to answer my email... Phil Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/233358-inat-faq-is-updated/page/2/#findComment-2810680 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chapter Master Ignis Domus Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 The Yakface writing the FAQ thing was not that he wrote the FAQ, but that GW took a whole lot of stuff from the INAT and wanted to credit him. He disagreed with some of the rulings, however, and was getting a lot of flak from it, so he asked them to stop putting it on there. That's why it's not on any new FAQs. It did used to say "Special thanks to First Name "Yakface" Last Name and his FAQ ruling team." at the top. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/233358-inat-faq-is-updated/page/2/#findComment-2810712 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Something Wycked Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Oddly enough, Yakface, who writes the INAT FAQ, also wrote several of the GW FAQ's, so there is at least a line of logic between this document and other past GW documents. SJ *Citation needed. Bottom of the Necrons FAQ: Thanks to Jon 'yakface' Regul and his FAQ ruling council http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_Custom...ecrons_2009.pdf Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/233358-inat-faq-is-updated/page/2/#findComment-2810714 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Algesan Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 . If everyone in the game you're playing agrees that a certain GW rule is stupid yes that does include me. what on earth do you gain by slavishly following it rather than agreeing to follow a different version? first of what? As what people gain. Clear rules . you go in to a shop or a local tournament and you know how stuff works and dont find out about it turn 3 of game 2 . are GW rules stupid and bad ? ask me what I think about the nid auras working different then any other aura or primas not being able to join spore units . But at least stuff is clear there is not "oh we let him use the upgraded rules for SS/TH " . also there is something people from english countries may not understand , but when you are using foreign language with rules , specialy when your language does not belong to the same group stuff has to be clear and for it to be clear RAW is the only way to do it . Does it mean that it sucks for some players ? yes it does . my brother had beastman army , when GW changed the number of models in ranks to get the rank bonus they "forgot" to FAQ beastman . army was made unplayable , but then again one could say it was his foult he didnt want to play chaos demons. The problem with your theory? Some people have trouble adjusting to RAW changes when the edition changes. I call it 4th edition hangover, but others call it lack of reading comprehension skills. I don't sweat it too much, I find out what the deal is and then I exploit it or don't play that unit/list/army as appropriate. What we actually need is a responsive game company that doesn't hide behind "make it your way so it is fun for you! :D :D :D ", until it is time for an official tournament when they crack down on the rules :lol: . We need a company that will update FAQs in a timely manner. That it means a company with a clue on how to build an organized vision, at the very least on the base rules. Rumor and circumstantial evidence says that isn't what we have. Codex writers seem to work in a semi-vacuum and the quality control suffers, increasing the need for retconning. You know something, it was turn 4 of game 2, but I know exactly what you mean there. There's a world of difference between the rules of the game and the laws of the land. And I suspect that 'social contract' may have been a little lost in translation in Jeske's reply. The social contract is simply an informal agreement between players that they will abide by a given set of rules. Those rules can be anything as long as they are agreed in advance by both sides. Nothing to do with social standing, bullying or enforcement by rulers. The default is of course the RAW in the rulebook, usually modified by GW official FAQ and/or Errata. But many tournaments will further modify those rules to a greater or lesser extent. Again, as long as it's all perfectly clear in advance then I don't see the problem. Well, the biggest one being that you aren't going to be arrested and put in prison for forgetting a rule in a game, but that is pretty much the only one, otherwise we would have to negotiate the rules before each game. As it is, there are several bits where I would be happy to play with the RAW, but instead you have to deal with RAI(nterpreted) because "that's the way we always play" or "that's the way 40k has always been". What is funny is watching people claim they are doing a clear and unbiased reading of the 5th edition rules, before coming up with a 4th edition interpretation and then quoting the 4th edition rules verbatim to justify it. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/233358-inat-faq-is-updated/page/2/#findComment-2810750 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.