Ottawa Area Errata

[natesnation]

my understanding is that the would be making up a rule not interpreting a rule or set of rules to figure out what is intended.. or is there specific mention of this in the codex?

A.

Not really, no. Its just a cool idea. I know back in they day you were able to field an entire army of striking scorpions.

[Orbital]

my understanding is that the would be making up a rule not interpreting a rule or set of rules to figure out what is intended.. or is there specific mention of this in the codex?

A.

Not really, no. Its just a cool idea. I know back in they day you were able to field an entire army of striking scorpions.

They killed those lists for a reason, however.

[Twinlinked]

gotcha,

yeah that would fall heavily in the house rule category, and would just mean that the document would be just a suggestion of how you could play your games,

however if the document is clear about how certain possibly ambiguous rules will be played then there is no question it is simply "This is how we are playing this" earlier in this thread i brought up the idea of actually modifying codices but the point was brought up that that removes credibility form the rest of the document,

i will put together a version of the document and see what people think. Always easier to get comments when you can see wat you are referring to

A.

[Henshini]

Maybe you should call it an FAQ instead of an errata. FAQ implies this is how we will be interpreting this rules conflict/vaguary, which is what you're looking for I think.

[Twinlinked]

Yeah Errata is not the correct term really,

I t will likely change to FAQ or something else but until we decide what the final name will be i was planning to hold off changing it,

A.

[Tokkan]

In essence, it'd be like an Ottawa version of INAT FAQ, right?

[Gahris]

If you really want to do this, I would read up on the INIT faq. Actully, I would just use that one instead of making one since this one is plkaytested abit.
http://www.adepticon.org/wpfiles/inat/INATFAQv4.0.pdf

[Twinlinked]

In essence, it'd be like an Ottawa version of INAT FAQ, right?

SOrtof - they would both be FAQs

If you really want to do this, I would read up on the INIT faq. Actully, I would just use that one instead of making one since this one is plkaytested abit.
http://www.adepticon.org/wpfiles/inat/INATFAQv4.0.pdf

in my opinion the INAT FAQ tries to do way too much and it results a second rule book which you need to read.

The problem with the INAT FAQ is that it is so big some people inevitably dont agree with everything, i am proposing a far simpler (and smaller document) that addresses key issues, and justifies its rulings based on facts taken directly from the rules book codexs etc.

A.

[Gahris]

The problem with creating a local FAQ is playtesting and disagreements on rulings.

If you start changing minor things, where do you draw the line? Will you change states, points costs, wording?

So you want have an FAQ similat ot how INIT is, but smaller? So picking and choosing rulings?

If you try making your own, its either going to be too small, and wont cover enouph of the issues, too many disagreements due to lack of playtesting, or will eventully get large enouph to be comparable to the INIT faq

The other problem is trying to get people to use them. WIll it be only to games a handful of pople play and become into house rules?

If its used by the Gamesummit or other tournaments, what would people out of town think? They may not share the same ideas.

Look at the discussion on the Ork KFF, Valkirie or other discussions on rules in alot of places. When people make up their minds, they are passionate towards there ideas.

So if this idea goes mainstream, it has the chance of dividing the community.

See, Corey did the really smart thing for the Gamesummit - No Special characters. That basically fixes atleast 90% of the "model" problems. He didn't try changing the balance of armies by making vulkan +10pts, Changing statistics like making weapons Heavy 4, etc.

I dunno. I think your setting yourself up for a ton of work, that may not be used at all.

If your up for making "twinlinked 40k" and make your changes for houserules/games at home, I'd consider playtesting your version of 40k

PS - Please don't take my post as bashing you, etc. This is over the internet, so it looks alot more negative then I want it to sound

[Orbital]

It's important to mention that any group of players can get together and make any changes to the rules they want and then play by them. Nothing stopping anyone. After all, you don't need a license to play 40k. In fact, I think it's the kind of self-motivated creativity and initiative that the old-timers in Nottingham like to see.

Obviously, there's no way to impose these home-made rules on the community at large, but I don't think anyone is suggesting that. It wouldn't be used in an tournament setting at Game Summit, for instance.

I'm not a fan of the INIT FAQ, personally. There are three reasons for this: 1) They aren't rules designers, but they undertake the job of creating supplemental rules for what they perceive as problems with the current ruleset. This is a really slippery slope; Rules Development is one of those things that everyone thinks they could do if they had the chance, but are almost always wrong; 2) It's not ratified by Games Workshop so you cannot accept it as a tournament-legal standard. It's not unusual for GW to come out with their own official FAQ that contradicts INIT. 3) The only information they have to make judgments is what's been available currently or in the past. This means they can only decide based on precedent. GW has sometimes put rules into codices which are there to prepare for an upcoming update in core rules. There's no way of knowing when this is going to happen, so you never know when you're undoing rules that *need* to be there for future use.