You can find the document by clicking this link: ITC FAQ
I recently attempted to make my way through the enormous document and I had to admit that I had to ask myself whether this FAQ over reached itself like the INAT did before it. We go through these cycles of FAQ's that "everyone is using" and local tournaments, in some unfortunate attempt to legitimize their events, adopt the document wholesale instead of using it as a starting point.
I chose a few excerpts that sort of illustrate the problem so that you don't have to scan the whole thing for examples. No matter your opinion on the rulings themselves, I think the real issue here is not whether you agree on the ruling, but rather whether they should have rules on these at all. These aren't just interpretations, they are in most cases flat out intentional core and codex rules changes!
Template and Blast weapons, and any other attacks or special rules that don’t roll To Hit, or hit
automatically (e.g. Imothek’s Lord of the Storm special rule), have no effect on Zooming Flyers
and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures. This is true even if the attacking unit has the Skyfire special rule.
Whuuuut? That really makes no sense at all since the actual rules on this are really clear. The Hard to Hit rule for Flyers is different than that for Flying Monstrous Creatures (very different). What was the point of this ruling? And why the frak can't lightning hit any of them? Its WAY faster than any of them! Lol. Editorializing aside, they are actively reversing a rule as written that isn't unclear.
Example 2 and 3:
For ease of tournament play, at this event, if a Blast or Template weapon would hit models on
more than one level of a ruin, the player making the attack must choose only one of the levels to hit.
This also is an absolute contradiction of the rules as written and no one would argue that it isn't! Its a For "ease of play"? No its not! All you have to do is count and roll. This is a stubborn throwback to 6th edition. I don't support an FAQ when it's a revisionist attempt and not just a "hey you're right, that rule could be a lot clearer" type of thing. Explosions go off in three dimensions and the fallout does as much damage as the blast does sometimes! Excluding multiple levels, especially when those higher levels could be smaller than the levels below (and thus have people totally non-obscured down below)... Seems a bad call.
Look at it through this lens, another FAQ:
If the Mawloc’s attacks destroy a Transport vehicle with embarked passengers, the passengers
disembark normally before attempting to place the Mawloc. This may cause the passengers to
be hit by the second blast marker or force the Mawloc to roll on the Deep Strike Mishap table.
Now here they are letting you attack essentially multiple "levels". First the tasty bottom of the vehicle and then the poor sods inside. Ease of play? Not so much. This also has some poor wording because it tells you that the models inside are placed before you place the Mawloc? and its effectively letting the Mawloc hit TWICE. Does this seem wrong to anyone? It does me.
Example 4:Force weapons cannot cause Instant Death to Kharn the Betrayer even if their strength is double or more than his Toughness value (e.g. a Nemesis Daemonhammer).
Basically adding Eternal Warrior to a model that doesn't have it! Arbitrary as all get out. I know what they were going for, but rewriting the codex's entries isn't what I expect when I go to an FAQ... Applications of rules or interpreting them is one thing but this is actually rewriting the codex entry and just adding things!
Here's another one I scratched my head about and again because it singles one model out and not others like it
O’Vesa may join units like a normal Independent Character. However, other Independent
Characters cannot be joined to a unit containing O’Vesa. If a unit already contains another
Independent Character, this effectively prevents O’vesa from joining that unit.
Since I have never opted to use O'Vesa I suppose my rooting interest here is minimal. This one looks like someone got butt hurt and just said "not on my lawn!". But then if all it takes to get an FAQ like that is someones indignation over a trouncing, then we will be in for a veritable blizzard of these kinds of rulings in the future from the ITC FAQ. I can find a hundred thousand disgruntled gamers with a horror story at the ready.
The FAQ has a huge amount of good things to say so I am not dismissing it all as tripe nor encouraging a mass rebellion over the issue. Far from it. But I have to say, these were unwelcome finds.
They did the same thing on Invisibility. I suppose I do like the changes there and in a lot of places, which goes to show you that I don't find myself in disagreement that some changes were welcome. I just wonder if it has overreached itself in trying to add and subtract rules that don't need it. I know the FAQ has influenced me to think more about how I write my own FAQ's for the tournaments I run. Cut and pasting isn't going to be a part of the program moving forward, I think. I encourage others to use the ITC FAQ as a springboard, but do not slavishly follow all of it just to gain a little legitimacy. Selling out on something you don't 100% believe in isn't ever a winning strategy.