Running giant tournaments at huge personal financial risk is a ton of fun, especially when you read the lovely things people say. We spent all day Saturday working the FAQ, all day today on terrain. They'll be out before Mr. Kevin's deadline, fortunately. I really need a vacation.

Ahhh, I realized after I posted this that I probably should have reinforced that it was a pure rant post. It got frustration off my chest. Just after I got back in tonight (after doing some more testing) I actually put the edit in to not take it too seriously, then came here to find it.

I know Mike and company are busting their arses to get stuff up and running for the best possible tournament we can have. In fact, kudos for the idea of the rules discussion forum to help find a lot of the bombs in the rules prior to the FAQ and the tournament.

You can look at it this way Mike. Love me or hate me, when I get back, I'll stick you for what I think you screwed up, congratulate you on what I think you did right and give you a waiver on what couldn't be helped. Oh, and it won't matter how I do either.

One thing I'll tell you now, I'm already through 25-50% of my disposable budget for NOVA. You know, the stuff I was going to have to spend at vendors. I have no clue if you get a piece of that or not, but it is just less I have to spend. I will tell you that if I do end up frustrated enough to show up at the table, shake my opponent's hand, fill out the paperwork and walk off...let it go. First, you don't have time to deal with that kind of crap from one irate customer. Second, I'll be too pissed for you to want to deal with and trying to will just piss me off more.

In the meantime I'll just have to try to scrape up any kind of extra practice time I can and pray that I don't end up having to do a rebuild yet again on my list.

Well, he did ask us, that is what the NOVA forum is for....

Mike is actually playing this smart and straight, even if I think he may be making bonehead calls. He listens to his playerbase and responds to their concerns. I'm just waiting on the FAQ because trying to figure out which way the rules will jump is getting insane.

Lots and lots of truly stupid rules interpretations on the Internet, but they get taken seriously because they "sound good" or "they make a good case". It hurts that we haven't had several years of fixing last edition hangover, but it also doesn't help that I can see some of these becoming enshrined as "RAW" despite being actual misinterpretations of the rules as written. Biggest problem now? The NOVA FAQ coming out soon will do a lot to enshrine consensus (mis)interpretations of RAW. I'm aware that the NOVA FAQ will probably be including at least a couple and from preliminary comments, perhaps several more.

Huge example, 5th's "No Retreat" rules. From the context, it can be read that each Fearless unit on the losing side takes wounds equal to the full amount the combat was lost by. It can also equally be read from the context that the full amount of wounds the combat was lost by is divided up among the Fearless units. So, instead of two units taking four wounds each, they take four wounds together.

I'm not going to get into the whys and debate that again, but the justification for the primary from the rulebook is logically shaky, but it does "sound good". The key point comes from a game design perspective, namely that you do not build rules that are intentionally set up to be exploited. Which is exactly what the consensus interpretation did, it set up the potential for exploitation vs certain lists.

So, when I could, I exploited it. Little hard to set up elegantly, but doable. Look at it this way, at the most extreme example, I had two MCs locked up with two model squad remnants (one on MC, other on "patsy") which meant they could only kill two models at most (I actually only lost three) and ended up winning combat by seven wounds. Seven!

Let's see....Marines at S4, MC at T6...6s to wound means I would have needed to roll 42 hits. 4+ to hit would have meant 84 attacks. So, that is the equivalent of an extra 28 Marines armed with BP/CCW on the charge or 42 with Bolters on the charge. Against _each MC_. For free, thank you so much for allowing me to do the equivalent of tripling my entire force of models for one turn.

Yes, we all played it that way, despite the fact that quite a few players I chatted with about it knew that it was a misinterpretation. After all, everyone had to play with it and it usually wasn't that bad in most games. So, shrug, move on and if you happened to play that kind of list that could be exploited, just figure it as being a tax for GW not specifying the correct reading from the context.

When it comes to the ruling(s) of a TO, be it in a FAQ or table side, players can only agree or disagree. Judging right-ness or wrong-ness is not an option because it is *impossible* for TOs to be wrong about rulings. TOs have the power over the rules, not GW, even when it comes to FAQs.

Some people no doubt believe that since GW releases the rules they have final say, but that's not really how things work. As long as events are organized independently of GW, TOs will maintain all the power over the rules. This power is extensive. If, in a years time, a TO wanted to run a 5E tournament, there is nothing stopping him. If a TO disallowed a specific codex, there is nothing stopping him. If a TO ruled contrary to a GW FAQ ruling, there is nothing stopping him. And players would have to follow the TOs rulings if they wished to compete in the event.

The counter-weight to a TOs power is community demand, and the 40k community prefers GW rulings for at least two reasons. First, FAQs are a window into design intent. GW designed the system, therefore, in theory, their rulings are more likely to be in line with the overall game design. Second, consistency. A GW ruling allows for consistency throughout various events. Even TOs prefer GW rulings because they're more convenient... all they require is an index finger and 'there's your ruling.'

TOs have all the power, but they need to draw the community to their event so they have to listen to community demand. What does that mean for this discussion? Mike and the NOVA staff, FAQ the game however you want to FAQ the game. You might piss some players off and lose some attendance. But, if the process by which you create your FAQ is through and open, stick to your guns. Remember, it's impossible for you to be wrong. In the long run you'll add worthwhile players to your event (who agree with your FAQ process but not necessarily with every ruling) because they understand how tournament work. And the players you lost... you'll never miss them.

It matters when you're spending 1/6th of your yearly income to make a 4 day trip. ;)

I sent out an email to Mike, so hopefully he understands my position a little bit better, but he hasn't responded...so I don't really know. In any case, I respect what they are doing quite a bit. Takes a helluva long time to do what they are doing and lots of work. If I could volunteer, I would. But being halfway across the country, that isn't really possible. :(

In the end, I'll be there. My hope is that I'll have a painted army by then so that I can play in the GT. If not, then...I'll enjoy my chilled beverages from the sidelines. :)

If your email was anything like mine, even if he gets it, it won't be something he needs to respond to.

BTW, I did notice when reading the painting rules that you could actually base coat (not just prime) and then slap a couple more colors on them, not bother with "beautifying" the base and even not bothering with a display board. Then show up at the paint judging table, give them your name and tell them to give you a zero. Maybe the guys at the next table would notice, but I doubt it.

It's a comment I made back in June about this issue and one I'll stick to. I'm going to make an honest effort, so there better not be _any_ official NOVA complaints if I (or anyone else in my hearing) field any models with base coat and two colored stripes. I'm fairly sure MVB is going to instruct his people to look the other way as long as minis aren't obviously just primer coated or even totally unpainted.

I'd rather deal with bad rules rulings that chicken excrement about paint jobs.

My question is WHY is a textured black base NOT an option unless I add something textured and black to the textured black base the mini comes with? Just to show that a player made the effort? I mean, it really isn't that big a deal, I think I can even enlist my seven year old to apply a little Elmer's and sprinkle colored sand on the bases, but....