Wednesday, June 23, 2010

The Adepticon FA-WTF??!?!

So, rant time....

This time it is about what bothers me with the prevalancy of the Adepticon FAQ- CRAP.

Ok I'm aware that IF I go to Adepticon, I'll be using the Adepticon FAQ. I'm fine with that. It's their event and they are more than welcome and encouraged by me to use it and abide by it. It works for them.


If I am going to be running an event and have a player quote to me that a rule has been "FAQ'd" and I ask when, and they quote to me the Adepticon FAQ, I'll simply rule against them. Period.

I have NO OBLIGATION to use that thing in ANY event that I run. EVER.

But Why you may ask...

Well, I Just downloaded the 3.3 FAQ.

We'll start from the begining.

Page 1: Table of COntents.... Ok that works.
Page 2:

"Rulings that clarify an issue that has no conclusive RAW answer are noted as [clarifications].
Rulings that change the RAW because we feel playing that way is absurd, unfun, or goes against the style the vast majority of people play are noted as [rules change].
Situations where we feel the issue is clearly based on a typographical error are noted as [typo]."

So, if you can't figure out what the English (which the creators of the game speak fluently) version of the rules mean, you make a change.
If you don't like the rules you change them,
and because you can't use your brain in any gramatical fasion, you change the rules...


I'm paying an exorbinate ammount of money to play a game that is moderately well designed. and you change the rules. FUN.

So, lets look at some examples:


RB.22A.01 – Q: When models from two or more units are intermixed together, can these units simultaneously provide cover saves for each other from a single enemy firing unit?
A: Two or more intermixed units cannot simultaneously provide cover saves for each other against a single enemy firing unit. When such a situation occurs, the intermixed unit with a model closest to the firing unit does not count as being in cover from the unit(s) they are intermixed with [rules change].

First, this is not a rules change. Second, Duh, you measure from the firing unit to the closest model of the target unit. if there is another intervening model between them they get cover. if not, not. How is that hard? you don't measure to the farthest model. all you have to measure is if they are in range.
intervening models make it so that if you shoot through 1 squad to another. not to the back guy. It's part of the definition of INTERVENING.

PAGE 11:
"RB.48A.02 – Q: Can an Independent Character end its move within 2” of a unit it cannot join (like a vehicle)?
A: Yes they can, as otherwise it would be impossible for an IC to disembark from a vehicle that has already moved [rules change]."

seriously, that really needed to have someboy both A) ask the question and B) you thought it was serious enough to require an answer?

Page 13:
"RB.61H.02 – Q: If a vehicle has a weapon that can only be fired a certain number of times, and that weapon has been fully expended (such as firing a Hunter-Killer Missile, for example), does it still count as a „weapon‟ that can be destroyed by a „Weapon Destroyed‟ damage result?
A: No, weapons on a vehicle that cannot possibly fire for the rest of the game no longer count as weapons in regards to „Weapon Destroyed‟ damage results [rules change]."

So because you want to kill vehicles faster, you take away the point of a lot of people taking Single Use weapons. Thanks.

Page 15:

"RB.67C.01 – Q: If a lone Independent Character is embarked on a vehicle that is within 2” of a friendly unit, is the IC considered joined to that unit?
A: No, while an IC is embarked on a vehicle he cannot be joined to a unit that is outside of the vehicle [rules change]."

So, the part of the rules where it states that a unit can not be partially embarked on a vehicle does not cover this? Seriously?

RB.67F.01 – Q: When a transport vehicle suffers a „Destroyed – explodes!‟ result its passengers must be placed “where the vehicle used to be”. What exactly does this mean?
A: Passengers must be placed wholly inside the area of the table that the vehicle‟s hull previously occupied [clarification].
Any models that cannot fit entirely within this area or are within 1” of an enemy model are removed from play as a casualty. In addition, the models count as having disembarked from a vehicle (and so cannot assault the same turn if the vehicle wasn‟t open-topped, for example) [rules change].

And here you go on to both change a rule and kill a lot of orks. Orks have enough problems. Thanks again. FAILURE

The list goes on and on, but you get the Idea.

First I have to give the guys who wrote this thing credit for trying to answer EVERY stupid question people who don't know the rules ask.
And secondly I have to sarcastically thank them for putting it out there where everyone thinks it is a Cannon document that is in effect in every tournament.

No Thank you.

- Rant Off.


  1. The worst part about it is when they blatantly admit that they change rules. It should be called "The House Rule FAQ."

    Most of it is just basic reading comprehension.

  2. I think you are being to hard on them. They are trying to cover as many bases as possible. GW rules are junk and they try to fill the holes so that everyone coming in knows the rules being played by. Much better than just the decision of an individual judge that can be random or baised by what army they might play when they are playing. How long have we been waiting for Nid FAQ? Six Months. How about a note about how Shrike is supposed to work? 20 Months.

    Your own discussion is incorrect. The Page 5 one under the current rules you can arrange units to get them both cover saves since you determine cover on a model by model basis. Doing this and moving the units is incredible slow and lame so they just disallowed it.

    I do not agree with all their rules but I would not automatically rule the other way unless I actually disagreed strongly with the ruling and can back it up.

  3. While yes, I would judge the situation on an as is basis, And yes I said I would instantly judge against them, in truth I would have to look at it.

    But the problem I have with the ADEP'AQ is that people take it as cannon.

    I guess the interpretation I have of the "Intervening Model" situation is just my own, even though Adepticon FAQ agrees with me... in a round about way.

    But seriously, the Doom's problems need a GW FAQ more than ANYTHING else in the Nid book.

    Yes, I know there are other problems, but that (to me at least) is the one reason I refuse to run the Doom in my lists.

    - Thanks for the quick replies.

  4. Lets break down these choices some more:

    Page 5 is a rule change which prevents stupid exploits of intermixing units to get cover saves. Speeds up the game and avoids having to determine really pesky cover situtations.

    Page 11 is a rule change that is actually required. Current the rules do say that an IC cannot go within 2 inches of a unit he cannot join (Page 48 end of first bullet point) so they need to change if you want to be able to have a lone IC disembark after the transport moves.

    Page 13 also agree that single use weapons after used do not really count as weapons anymore. I work to get a weapon destroyed result only to get no affect since you have an empty HK launcher. That would be lame.

    Page 15 a.) Seems like just making clear since GW says you measure things for embarked people from the hull but do to having no real structure in the rules about which come out of (or into) a vehicle.

    15 b.)This one is the only one I question but they are just trying to complete what GW left empty. GW says place them where the vehicle was without defining that in a specific way or explain what to do it they do not all fit. They tell you what to do when destroyed models cannot be placed but it is almost like it did not occur to them that some vehicles might actually have a hard time fitting all the occuptants "where they were" especially if enemy models surrounded it and you cannot be within 1 inch.

    All these seem like good ways to play the game. Try harder to find some bad ones.

  5. I actually have no problem with any of the rulings you've pointed out.

    I would go through the trouble of explaining wy, but Eriochrome seems to have pointed out why each makes sense above. I could see complaining about the terminology they use though. Really, 15a seems like a clarification, and not a rules change.

    If you're running a tourney, you have the right to use whatever FAQ's you want. I believe the mindset for Adepticon was to go through any past rulings you had to make and just publicize them. That way, you can get any arguments out of the way. If you clarify everything ahead of time, people may not agree, but they'll at least know what they're getting into before they start. :)

  6. As noted above, those all seem like pretty reasonable things for the FAQ to address...

    It's also worth noting to the one point that they seemingly leave out a ton of questions people want included, on the grounds of being clear from the rules or too trivial. yakface ran through a whole bunch of those in the most recent posting thread on dakkadakka, so it's clear they actually do put a fair bit of effort into culling the list.

  7. ok, here are a few that I specifically take exception to. NOTE: As GW has not released a Tyranids FAQ and since I am at work and this this really the only section i have time to go through at this point, take this for what it is.

    TYR.35B.01 – Q: Can a Hive Tyrant leave a unit of Tyrant Guard once he joins them?

    A: Yes, he may both join and leave them as if he were an Independent Character [rules change].

    NO. the Tyrant in not an IC. he can join (RAW) he may NOT leave (RAW).

    Don't change the rules of the game.

    and don't get me started on the Doom. that thing needs an OFFICAL GW FAQ.

    I guess in the end, I'm not against people using the Adepticon FAQ, I don't.

    And don't expect it to be valid at every event.

  8. Finally Out and the rule you mention goes the other way which is the correct way.

  9. I saw that. Thank god GW Finally got on the ball and put that thing out..... at nearly the same time as the BA one I see.

  10. Unfortanutely GW did a pretty poor job. Instead of fixing Spirit Leech properly they just made a blanket decision which weakens Shadow and should in fact do the same things to Psychic Hoods in a consistant ruleset. But I will save the rant for my page and every other page about the FAQs.

  11. Don't worry Eriochrome, Once I've read it a few more times (with a microscope thanks for that crappy font GW) I'll be posting up another rant on that and a few other choice rulings (go go gadget mental disfunction on regeneration already regenerated wounds, seriously people What The F***


What have you to say on this?