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