Since there is an AOS meetup in the offing, and there will be a tournament, I was wondering if everyone would be interested in compiling a list of AOS houserules that would be used at that time.

GW GTs have tournament rules, in fact most tournaments have a set of FAQs and errata that are used for their events.

This would be a list that I would use in my own games as well (probably most of you would too, I would think) expecially since the really sticky ones (should we call them Murphey's? ) have been debated on this site using logical arguments to attempt to resolve the question. Seems to me that we could get a rather large list together which would save time at the tourney with all the combatants being on the same page, as it were.

Even though I won't be able to be at WHW in person, I'd would like to help out with this. Thoughts/comments?

TW

This has not been attempted since our most esteemed faqboss Mattj stepped down from the post.

It's a hell of a job, TW, not to be taken lightly.

If experience on the Warseer faq project has taught me anything, it's that it needs a boss to oversee things, a sympathetic and open-minded dictator (if that's not an oxymoron or something).

Of course the chaos faq went tits up, but, what did you expect of something called "chaos" that was (mainly) KMB and I???

Extreme speed + dodgy driving + cliff edge = plummety plummety, all the way down.

Fairly ninja Idea...
Ljundhammer has suggested using the GT FAQ as a base (in semi competative games).. http://warhammerworld.typepad.com/files ... .02.09.pdf
there appears (from the folks who post) to be an acceptance of new rules over old (against certain precedents about codex over rulebook) ..Which could be hammered out a fair bit more.
I think I made a list at one point of houserules we had (and I think others took part to.) mine was about my lot not liking me popping smoke and passengers firing (although now the GT faq says dreaders can pop and run there are certain elements that might cause a reevaluation of that) and also we kind of treat MCs as having imaginary tabards to block lOS (Although I think this could just be mentioned when classifying terrain pieces..if folks thought it was a half way house that stopped people making 3 foot wide banners and crouching wraithlords etc)


Ahh here you go Here is the trhead on houserule for august.. I started last year..Hope it helps with your planning

i know King is interested at the idea of running proper AoS-GF tournies, with prize support etc, in the future. for something like that, a proper FAQ is definately needed.

however, for the purposes of this year's more casual event, i think just a general awareness of sticky issues and a cooperative attitude is all that is needed. at the last WHW meeting we just agreed on issues that came up at the tabletop, with no fuss (we just said "yes" ).

for the time being, i dont think we need to stress too much over fixing every little niggling rules problem - we just need to all be aware of the ones likely to come up in our own games, and have some sort of idea as to how we will be likely to resolve them on the day. at the end of the day we are all friends, there are no entry fees, and no prizes at stake.

that said, if there is an interest for this sort of thing, i will obviously help where-ever i can.

cheers!

~ Tim

That thread ws to try to help with the transition from 4th to 5th. It's been long enough now for everyone to be pretty familiar with the new edition.

I thought this might be a good group project, I can only imagine how much work went into matts FAQ.

We'll see where this goes.

TW

Well since its for less than a hundred people (50ish at best) not for sale.. probably not marketed... myabe just kept in a thread for download...
We could do it the easy way..
we cross reference INAT GT FAQ and current GT faqs.. and just overide bits where our personal views differ from the current interpretations of RAW.
Its a tad negative and we'd need to have an explicit cover letter at the top just saying its not an "anti faq"
Then throw about a bunch of GAP houserules and see if any of them fit in wider gaming circles (e.g. smoke passnegers.. drop pod doors opening and closing etc)
The warseer one was done from the ground up.. so required a lot more work and research.. (and thats before refining judgements) here we'd just go.. tick tick tick cross "why did you cross that?" "because its insane" "oh alright then.. lets put it to a vote"
Yakface already does a cool seqeunce of these in his rules forum his ' forget what raw says..how should this resolve' threads (I like them)

then you have to work out scope- do we fix options.. ork rammers ramming.. chaos dreadnought using 3.5 version of rage so it doesn't refuse to shoot at someone .001" further away than his battle brother etc..Thats where local game house rules verses comp tourney clash.

LordMalekTheRedKnight wrote:i know King is interested at the idea of running proper AoS-GF tournies, with prize support etc, in the future. for something like that, a proper FAQ is definately needed.

The way I see it, is that we probably don't outright "need" to do it for Aug.
But, if we are going to at some point, why not start as early as possible?

killmaimburn wrote:We could do it the easy way..
we cross reference INAT GT FAQ and current GT faqs.. and just overide bits where our personal views differ from the current interpretations of RAW.
here we'd just go.. tick tick tick cross "why did you cross that?" "because its insane" "oh alright then.. lets put it to a vote"

i think that is a great idea, especially considering we "have" to learn at least one of those FAQs anyway.

ruffian4 wrote:The way I see it, is that we probably don't outright "need" to do it for Aug.
But, if we are going to at some point, why not start as early as possible?

agreed. how about - at the very least - we:
- collect problem rules
- see how everyone wants to play them in Aug
- make a note of how it went
and use that as the basis of the "2010 Tourney FAQ"?

like i said, that would be at the very least - given KMBs suggestion, i cant see a problem with getting an FAQ off the ground in time for Aug anyway (and we can use that event to road-test it).

~ Tim

Well, I need to do a bit of pontooning and finish off the tower build, but sometime this morning/afternoon, I could convert the (entirely unorganised) gt doc, into the same sort of format as the inat one.

That should give us a template/make direct comparisons easier.
Though we should at least wait a bit for TW to WAKE UP! before going too far.

well we were going to flat out us the GT one, right? why dont we just go through it and note any questions/answers we arent happy with, then compare our lists? then we can compare what we have left to the other FAQs out there, and see if anything is missing from the GT one that someone else already covers. finally, we can add our own suggestions that everyone seems to have missed, and put it all into one FAQ. should be much less work that way.
(who knows, we might be happy with 99% of the GT FAQ anyway)

~ Tim

killmaimburn wrote:we cross reference INAT GT FAQ and current GT faqs.. and just overide bits where our personal views differ from the current interpretations of RAW.

I had this in mind.

I've just had one of those odd synapse flashes. How about .... we put each Q&A into a database, have it searchable, and make it so that when new entries are added someone then hits a "PDF" button and out spits a new PDF ready to download on the site?

It can be a living FAQ (cue lightning, rain, plasma globes, big shoes and square head, and shouts of "It's alive!"), and once the PDF layout is prepped requires little in the way of maintenance other than adding/editing/removing entries from the database and a button push (button push saves having it auto generate the PDF on every update which could slows things right down if someone is making lots of little changes at a short time).

So I guess first thing to do would be to decide on a layout so the database can be structured to fit it. If an initial draught can be sorted out then that can be plugged into a database to fit, and then the editing front end added and permissions provided as necessary (eg. FAQ team are the only ones who can add/edit/remove entries, everyone can search/read).

im just thinking that if there is another FAQ already out there that is "(almost) good enough" then we could save ourselves an awful lot of hassle by just stealing it wholesale and taking a red marker (figuratively speaking) to the bits we arent (quite) happy with.

i mean, King etc are already using the GT FAQ this weekend, as are a lot of people, so it cant be too bad, right? (plus if we can get our FAQ close to one used by a big event, that means there will be less issues with people who want to play in both our tourney and the other event, as both will use mostly the same rules)

~ Tim

Good morning all!
I like Spack's idea of the database, makes sense and as he said would simplify the process.
@Tim-good idea using the existing Gt FAQ. I also have a copy of the adepticon FAQ. These would make a good starting point.

TW

timewizard wrote:@Tim-good idea using the existing Gt FAQ. I also have a copy of the adepticon FAQ. These would make a good starting point

Drink your morning coffee... then have a look at my custom title..