Rule Council for Tourneys

Joel has offered me 40 dollars (which is equal to 1st place winnings) store credit in order to run a tourney this month.

I have 0 interest in running a tourney and being handed 40 dollars credit, but not playing to win it.

Chris is leaving town, so he can no longer run tourneys for the foreseeable future.

Brian is like me, and has little interest in running tourneys he cannot play in.

So, if the community likes to play in tournaments, here's my proposition:

A rule council of four-six "senior" players from Sunshine (me, Josh, Max, Brian, Chris, Juan, etc), each with equal authority, be co-organizers. This means, if one or more of us fail to show up on time (or at all) we have redundancy for signing people in, arranging terrain, making sure rounds run smoothly, making sure everyone has someone to play, etc. Furthermore, with four to six folks, all with a say on how a rule call should go, judgments on a rule dispute should be handled more democratically. Furthermore, if there is a rule dispute in a game involving a rule council member, that member will be unable to have a vote in how the dispute is resolved. This kills the "ethics" argument.

In exchange, the 40 dollars which would normally be handed to the single TO who would normally run the tourney, would instead be added to the "pot", meaning the pay-outs for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th would have 40 dollars more to spread around.

In addition, I'm also planning on instituting sportsmanship scores, and possibly comp scores as well.

What say you all? The "ethics" argument is kind of moot here, again, as any TO involved in a game will be unable to vote on how the rule dispute is resolved.

This still boils down to other teams saying whether it's ok to call a foul on another team. That's what officials (TOs) are for..... Ethics point not mooted.

As long as people voting no are willing to stand up and run a tournament every now and then

Having multiple people judge rules are just an attempt to have people run a tournament so we don't' get one month where we don't have anyone.

Also, the store is lacking its own houserules- or at least rules clarifications.

You know Mr. Crabs aint gonna run anything. He leaves that to his customers. So if there are to be store house rules a player/customer will have to step up and lay down the rules and get Mr. Crabs approval. Im sure he'll flounder on that one. He wont want to ruffle feathers because we all know some players will bitch and cry about house rules, but present no solution either.

I agree with house rules by the way. To resolve issues. GW dont give a fuck so someone has to. Ill make the rules and if someone has a problem they can talk to my two friends from Europe...SIG and Saur.

I take it this only pertains to 40k right ?

Aye, only 40k.

Who gets to make these house rules?

I would say everyone. debate and vote

Yep. We can have a public vote on anything which the rules do not cover, until such time as a FAQ is released to clarify.

I voted yes because I'm very pro activism. However, this is SCREAMING trouble for the "spirit of the game" approach (flame me).

To be honest, the rules lawyers should get together and make the house rules (brian, josh, max, etc) because for the most part those are the unbiased persons.

Further, I would suggest that the TO "core group" sounds alot like an "elitist jerk" movement, as I'm sure many (though not I) will see it as. It'd be better if our more veteren players simply create a round-robin TO group, where everyone shuts up and does whats good for the 40k community for the sake of good play. To be honest, missing one tournament every 4-5 months isn't ground breaking.

I know my view will be highly unpopular, but somebody has to play devil's advocate.

PS- Just in case I wasn't clear, I did vote yes, any progress is good progress.

I'm definitely a jerk, but I'm not really an elitist. The core group would mainly be people who are known to have been playing for 3-4 years. I have no issue with other people volunteering to be co-organizers, so long as they are not wet-behind-the-ears, "I just started playing 40k 6 months ago" folks, if you get my meaning. Furthermore, additional TOs means that, on the off chance one TO gets a rule wrong, the others would be able to cross-check him and correct him. I get stuff wrong from time to time, as does Brian, Chris, etc. If we have 5-6 people, we have redundancy, and that's a good thing when a rule call is made. It sucks when a Judge makes a bad call on a rule, which costs a person a game, and that person goes home to find the Judge was wrong. Y'know?

I like consensus. I feel the more people who know what they are doing involved in organizing a tourney and settling disputes, the more likely those disputes are settled right. I absolutely hate the idea of a single person (including myself) being in charge of everything. It pisses off the single person, and it means that one person has no one to keep him in check or correct him, should he make the wrong decision. An example would be in the prior tourney, in which half of the room believed a unit which was pinned could not claim an objective. Had any one of those people been running the tourney, the game in question would have been lost by the player who had a pinned squad on an objective. However, if six people were running it, and five believed pinned units couldn't score, there's a good chance person #6 would have corrected them, and avoided the issue.

Not everyone is on the forum. How would you include them in this process? I think there is no way that this can be done without someone crying foul. Josh and myself I believe just try to make an amry list with as little rules issues as possible to avoid any arguments. At least I do now. Why not adopt INAT FAQ and be done with it. The hard work is already done and anyone at any time can look it up. I would even shell out the dough to get a hard copy printed. Nothing is more unbiased as someone who is not involved in games at our store. Personally I wouldn't mind a cover save from the Doom of Malagy while in a transport.

INAT FAQ, in addition to just being blatantly wrong in some instances, actively change the rules of the game. It is not so much an FAQ as an FAQ/Errata.

Also:

NEC.17A.02 – Q: If a character‟s Ld is reduced to 7 by a Pariah unit, and that character has the ability to pass his Ld onto other units (such as Space Marines „Rites of Battle‟), what Ld value would these other units use?
A: The other units would use the character's new Ld of 7, unless the ability specified that his unmodified Ld was used (such as with the Witch Hunter‟s „Book of St. Lucius‟, for example) [clarification].
Ref: DH.27.03, TYR.59B.02, WH.30B.03

>> Always use the highest leadership value. None of these abilities alter that. \

ELD.45B.02 – Q: Can enemy non-vehicle models utilize a cover save against Vibro Cannon wounds?
A: As the weapon does not require line of sight, they may only claim a cover save if at least half of their models are actually in terrain and/or touching a piece of intervening terrain [clarification].

>> Does not work that way. Just because something doesn't require line of sight doesn't mean the target doesn't get a cover save. This particular weapon is NOT barrage.

Can Kandras join a Scorpion unit before the game and use his „Stealth‟ ability to allow them all to infiltrate?
A: Yes, he may nominate a unit of Scorpions to join and together they may infiltrate [rules change].

>> Hahaha, no. This is just silly. Stealth doesn't allow a unit to infiltrate- it merely give them +1 to their cover save. So, because this is a rules change, Karandras' stealth gives my scorpions +1 to their cover save AND allows them to infiltrate. Wow, just wow.

This was in the first 5mins of sifting.

I agree with Chris. I don't agree with the INAT FAQ and it's my primary motivator for asking who gets to make these decisions.

Plus I don't want to read through 96 pages of rulings to play a game. If I wanted that, I'd be playing Warmachine MKI

I don't know. This just seems dangerous? We all know how rule arguments can get. I actually do enjoy them, except when someone forgets this is a game. The main thing I guess would be someone making decisions on armies they don't play. Chris mentioned some things about eldar up there in which I have no clue what he is talking about. I seriously doubt everyone is up on all the codex books to be making these decisions on rules. This really bugs me but, I have no answer.

#2 weapons that don't need LoS still yeild the enemy a cover save
#3 stealth gives +1 to cover not infiltrate

not codex involved.

When a rules question pops up you simply read the rules that pertain to that question. Don't see the need to play the particular army- if anything that only adds bias.


As far as argument, people simply need to remain civil and remove things such as personal attacks, words of emotion, and sarcasm to avoid complications. I, personally, have made such a mistake. But in truth there is nothing wrong with healthy debate.

Phuck it then. There is always the roll off, right?

jspyd3rx wrote:Phuck it then. There is always the roll off, right?

Indeed. Are there really that many questions within the rules that can't be answered? And those that can't be answered aren't really game altering. Doom of Atlanta , Deff Rollas, Joshs' pecs, all aren't game changing. They're just annoying. That's right Josh. I'm tired of your pecs pointing at me.....

Josh has a 60' radius Furious Charge aura. I love his pecs.

There are several rule issues which will come up. GW wrote these books after all. As for roll-offs, I can safely say I've never resorted to a roll-off in six years of 40K, and I'd never ask someone to roll off in a tourney. There's RAW, and there's RAW, as far as a tourney is concerned -- if there's a disagreement between players which can't be resolved, they call a TO, who examines the situation, reads the Codex / BRB, and makes a decision. If the decision is not satisfactory, luckily, you have 4-5 other TOs who will step in, review the decision, and either confirm or amend it.

Like J said, some folks don't know every UR or special rule in a Codex, and some people make mistakes, and some people fail at reading comprehension. Having numerous TOs who can, if need be, put the decision to a vote, seems like a more democratic answer than, say, going with whoever ran the tourney that month.

I'd rather have 6 people who know what they're doing be available for a rule call / be available to help numerous people simultaneously, than have to rely on someone who may / may not have a clue running a tourney.

I've made it to the finals in 'Ard Boyz several times, and won dozens of local tourneys, and played six different armies, over three editions. I know my shit. Josh has played numerous armies as well, has massive pecs, has won numerous tourneys, and knows his shit. Max has been playing since he was, like, 11, and has won more events than I've even attended. Brian, as well. Etc, etc.

We have credentials, and I think our track records indicate we really don't need to fudge rules in order to occasionally win a tourney at the local level. I don't speak for anyone here but myself, but I'm not comfortable with someone inexperienced running a tourney -- I've had that experience before, on three different occasions, and each one was horrendously terrible. Clueless rule judges are clueless, and ruin the entire event for anyone who isn't clueless.

Let people who are not clueless share the burden of running a tourney, and you will be guaranteed higher store credit payouts to the winners, smoother events, less biased rule calls, more knowledgeable judgments, and scenarios (assuming we decide to make custom scenarios) which are not shitty.

Or, you can play Russian Roulette, and pray Pepito knows what he's doing this month.

I'd recommend trying a Rule Council-based tourney one month, and seeing how you like it. If you feel it seemed shady, or feel slighted in some way, you can share your views and opinions here, and if there's genuine negative feedback, it'll be over and done with, and you can switch to Cesar's method for as long as it works. Where's the harm?

I you guys form a council...like lord of the rings Ill make a section specifically for that. The people can contact you guys via the forum and get answers. If their not on the forum their on their own. They'll have to track one of you down.

Call it The player FAQ. We can form a council for every major game system, not just 40k. Bill would be a good candidate for Fantasy as would Luis.

Sounds good. Hell, I don't even mind if I'm not on the Council. I just think the Council itself is a good idea, and is a better guarantee of there being people to organize events each month.

I don't know. I got a bad feeling about this. Now have to come up with a derogatory name for the circle. Circle Jerks would fit for the moment before I can come up with something witty.