Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Well, the FAQ council has finished going through the 2.0 revision of the INAT FAQ, and we're releasing version 2.0 for a "public beta" so to speak. We've gone through the new 40K 5 rules and each codex, and provided answers for the most frequently asked questions that pop up in tournaments.

This document is, of course, entirely unofficial, but we believe that it provides a valuable tool for tournament organizers and 40K players in general to use to resolve some of the thorny issues that pop up during play. It isn't meant to replace the GW FAQs in any way - in fact, the questions answered in the GW FAQs are not addressed in this document.

Click here to download the INAT FAQ ver 2.0

We welcome comments from the greater 40K community about the rulings made in the INAT FAQ. You can post comments in this thread, or email us at: awc_nfp@yahoo.com

FYI, this year the FAQ Council consisted of 9 members. The questions were generated through our own review of the rules, submitted to the council by members of the 40K community, or from monitoring various 40K web forums to see what questions came up often. The vast majority of the questions were answered with unanimous or near-unanimous consent. The contested questions were debated (at great length) and the majority opinion used.

Again, click here to download the INAT FAQ ver 2.0.

NOTE: You need to have Adobe Acrobat Reader ver. 7.0 or later to view this file.

Discussion on the various rulings and suggestions for improvement can be added to this thread here:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/225533.page

Please note, this is NOT the final version. Just as with previous years we will be listening to any and all constructive feedback and will be incorporating as much of it as we can into the final version of the FAQ.

If you see any questions missing, any glaring inconsistencies, any typographical or grammatical errors, etc, please feel post them in this thread.

This is a massive undertaking you have here, but neccessary, and it's looking pretty good so far. I'm gonna throw my 2 cents in on a couple things.

ORK.55D.01 – Q: Does a Deff Rolla affect enemy
vehicles that are rammed? If so, what about
Skimmers that manage to dodge the ram?

A: Enemy vehicles that are rammed do take an additional D6
S10 hits from the Deff Rolla. A skimmer that successfully
dodges the ram does not [clarification].

Tank Shocking only works vs. non-vehicles. Ramming only works against vehicles. The effects of the deff rolla only work when Tank Shocking things(RAW). They crush people, not vehicles. If it can't be Tank Shocked then it can't be affected by a deff rolla whatsoever; ergo vehicles are not affected by a deff rolla at all. Basically, if something can be run over by the deff rolla(i.e. Tank Shocked), then it suffers all of the effects of the deff rolla. It's simply best to disabuse anybody of the notion that they can Ram Titans with deff rollas and do 2d6 Str 10 hits to them(as that would be going full slow, and some tournament players just don't need any help in this area.). The problem here is obvious.

"We didn't think that Ork vehicle was dangerous, but then it drove up the Divinus Malleus' leg, crushed its head and rolled down the other side! Then the Divinus Malleus exploded and the Ork Battlewagon started driving towards us, so we ran for our lives!"

- Final words of Princeps Ugo of the Warhound Titan "Canis Rex", witness to the destruction of the Reaver Titan "Divinus Malleus", before his execution.



A Battlewagon just Rams using its Front Armor Value of 14.

Also, the author of the Ork codex stated in an interview/Q&A session that Trukks cannot Ram as they are not substantial enough to Ram anything, and will in effect explode into bits upon contact(ref. "The Road Warrior"- Humongous vs. semi ), even if they have a ram bar. Trukks can run over people(i.e. Tank Shock) but not Ram. That leaves only Tanks able to ram, as per the rules. Non-Tanks cannot Ram(RAW).

Overall - a nice FAQ.

But, where did you find the [RAW] for considering Staff of Ulthramar a double-handed weapon?

Centurian99 wrote:
We welcome comments from the greater 40K community about the rulings made in the INAT FAQ. You can post comments in this thread, or email us at: awc_nfp@yahoo.com

Impressive work

I have a couple of comments on the Space wolf section:

SW.06A.02 – Q: Does ‘Storm Caller’ really allow the unit to ‘strike first’ in close combat?
A: No, when assaulted the unit simply counts as being in cover. This means any charging enemies who direct any of their attacks towards models protected by Storm Caller counts as having assaulted through cover. Ignore this rule if the protected models were already locked in combat from a previous turn when charged. A unit protected by Storm Caller that assaults an enemy through cover still strikes at their regular Initiative [clarification].

It's worth clarifying this so it says that it's only when attacking through cover that combat is resolved in order of initiative.
When assaulting a unit that's not in cover a unit protected by Storm Caller would strike first (Except for attacks with I1 of course).


SW.10A.03 – Q: Do Blood Claw that Counter-Attack get a +2 Attack bonus because of ‘Berserk Charge’?
A: No, just the normal +1 Attack bonus [clarification].

The Big Rulebook clearly states on page 74 'exactly as if they too had assaulted' so yes, BCs do get +2 attacks - RAW
Same again for BCs on bikes and for Ragnar Blackmane.
How did you come to the conclusion that they only get +1A?

SW.15N.01 – Q: Can a model with a Wolf Tooth Necklace ignore persistent psychic abilities like Veil of Tears, Conceal, The Horror, etc?
A: Yes, the psychic ability still functions, however the model with the Necklace is able to ignore any an all effects of the ability [RAW].

You're getting Wolf Tooth Necklace and Wolf Tail Talisman mixed up here and in the next couple of questions.

I have a few questions and comments:

Pg. 43- Your comments on Howling banshees is vague, and doesnt mention anything as per their possible use of the acrobatic exarch power. This should probly be addressed.

Pg. 8- Your comments on weapons that are no classified as single handed weapons or close combat weapons, would this be the basis for your decision on the staff of ultramar? Also, what is your basis for this assesment?

Pg. 9- What is the interpretation of this in conjunction with the Space Wolf Chooser of the Slain. Id infer that it doesnt give you an additional power fist attack as it doesnt specificy however at the time the codex was written this rule hadnt even been dreampt of.

Pg. 64- Why is "Old and Wise" not usuable on a roll to seize the iniative? This roll directly pertains as to who goes first.

Pg. 64+65- Bloodclaw units: What is the basis for your decision regarding "beserk charge" and "counter attack" It would appear RAW that they do in fact get +2 attacks as counter attack allows the unit to count as charging, thus receiving +1 attack, wich beserk charge in turn replaces with +2.

Pg. 65- You have Wolf Tooth Necklace confused with Wolf Tail Talisman....

weee thank you!

A couple of things I noticed about the DE section of the FAQ.

For the DE poisoned blades and scissor hands, you reference the poisoned weapons rule from the main rule book. Does this mean that the DE poisoned weapons are no longer more potent than other races', or do they still wound on 2+ as per the codex?

Also, I believe that the clarification in the DE FAQ for the Xenospasm refers to the fact that a single unit could have an IC armed with a Xenospasm and an upgrade character armed with a Terrorfex; if both were fired at the same unit, the negative modifiers to the Pinning test should be cumulative for both.

LPetersson wrote:

SW.10A.03 – Q: Do Blood Claw that Counter-Attack get a +2 Attack bonus because of ‘Berserk Charge’?
A: No, just the normal +1 Attack bonus [clarification].

The Big Rulebook clearly states on page 74 'exactly as if they too had assaulted' so yes, BCs do get +2 attacks - RAW
Same again for BCs on bikes and for Ragnar Blackmane.
How did you come to the conclusion that they only get +1A?

Seconded.

The latter part of the rule, "exactly as if they too had assaulted" combines with the Berserk Charge wording that states, "They receive a bonus of +2 attacks when they charge, rather than only +1 attack as is normally the case," (emphasis mine). The Counter-Attack USR sets the condition (count as assaulting), and then the Berserk Charge rule clearly defines a bonus received when said condition is met. This bonus even explicitly overrides the normal rule (+1A).

I believe this logic is RAW, and that RAW is the standard you are using for Counter-Attack as demonstrated later in the FAQ:

"SW.15M.01 – Q: Does a model with a Wolf Pelt get a
total of +2 Attacks when he counter-attacks?
A: Yes [RAW]."

EDIT: I guess another argument I would present is the case of the Deff-Rolla.
Deff-Rolla adds attacks when tank shocking. -> Ramming is a type of tank shocking -> Deff-Rolla adds attacks when Ramming.
so...
Berserk Charge give +2A when Assaulting. -> Successful Counter-Attack results in model counting as Assaulting -> Berserk Charge gives +2A with Successful Counter-Attack.

Also, by extension, Ragnar Blackmane should be +3A when Counter-Attacking (+2A for Berserk Charge, +1A for Wolf Pelt). /edit

Great work guys. Cheers!

RB.67F.01 – Q: When a transport vehicle suffers a ‘Destroyed – explodes!’ result its passengers must be placed “where the vehicle used to be”. What exactly does this mean?

A: Passengers must be placed wholly inside the area of the table that the vehicle’s hull previously occupied. Any models that cannot fit entirely within this area or are within 1” of an enemy model are removed from play as a casualty. In addition, the models count as having disembarked from a vehicle (and so cannot assault the same turn if the vehicle wasn’t open-topped, for example) [rules change].

This is fairly harsh for a self-described Rules Change. There's nothing in the rules that indicates that models get auto-removed if they don't fit. Can you fit 20 bases within the footprint of the new official ork battlewagon model? If not, I think this is a very poor decision. Can you fit 10 bases within the footprint of a rhino? Or 12 within a chimera? And, if you can fit all the transportable models within the footprint of every relevant transport model, what's the point of making a case for models that don't fit?

the same movement phase it moves ‘flat out’ (by ramming another vehicle, for example) are the models onboard destroyed?

A: No, in this case all models onboard count as being destroyed [clarification].

That doesn't make sense. The question asks are the models destroyed. The answer says No, they count as being destroyed. If you say 'No', doesn't that mean they're not destroyed?

[For drop pods that are unable to open] both players can agree before the game to either pretend, to the best of their abilities, that the doors are open and both players can see ‘through’ the core for line of sight purposes, or they can agree to play that the model blocks line of sight ‘as is’

What if the two players cannot agree? Is there a default behaviour?

BT.29A.01 – Q: Do Black Templar models in Terminator Armor always count as stationary when shooting a rapid fire weapon? Can they assault the same turn they shoot a rapid fire or heavy weapon?

A: They may assault the same turn they shoot with rapid fire or heavy weapons [rules change]. They do not, however always count as stationary when shooting a rapid fire weapon (just with heavy weapons) [RAW].

This is just weird. Why have a rules change for half of this, but not the other half? It seems counter-intuitive. Couldn't you just [rules change] both aspects of the question to simplify this?

Thanks for the feedback. I'll try to let people have a glimpse of what the discussions were on various issues, and we'll flag these issues for our next review (sometime in January after the holidays).

On Deff Rollas and Ramming:
Essentially, after reading the rules, we determined that a ramming attack is a subset of the Tank Shocking rules. In particular, the rulebook says "Ramming is a special type of tank shock move and is executed in the same way..."

shabbadoo wrote:Also, the author of the Ork codex stated in an interview/Q&A session that Trukks cannot Ram as they are not substantial enough to Ram anything, and will in effect explode into bits upon contact(ref. "The Road Warrior"- Humongous vs. semi ), even if they have a ram bar. Trukks can run over people(i.e. Tank Shock) but not Ram. That leaves only Tanks able to ram, as per the rules. Non-Tanks cannot Ram(RAW).

Not that we're binding ourselves to answers that aren't in the GW FAQ, but do you have a source for this?

Zubb wrote:But, where did you find the [RAW] for considering Staff of Ulthramar a double-handed weapon?

To be honest, I can't remember exactly. I think it was because it's not defined as being a single-handed weapon, but I may be wrong.

LPetersson wrote:
SW.06A.02 – Q: Does ‘Storm Caller’ really allow the unit to ‘strike first’ in close combat?
A: No, when assaulted the unit simply counts as being in cover. This means any charging enemies who direct any of their attacks towards models protected by Storm Caller counts as having assaulted through cover. Ignore this rule if the protected models were already locked in combat from a previous turn when charged. A unit protected by Storm Caller that assaults an enemy through cover still strikes at their regular Initiative [clarification].

It's worth clarifying this so it says that it's only when attacking through cover that combat is resolved in order of initiative.
When assaulting a unit that's not in cover a unit protected by Storm Caller would strike first (Except for attacks with I1 of course).

I don't have my books to hand, as I'm out of town, but aren't Spore Mines mindless, specifically barring them from holding objectives?

I'd also disagree with spore mines granting kill points - they're effectively the same thing as the Scout Biker booby traps, except they float around. They're bullets, not infantry.

Centurian99 wrote:Thanks for the feedback. I'll try to let people have a glimpse of what the discussions were on various issues, and we'll flag these issues for our next review (sometime in January after the

LPetersson wrote:
SW.10A.03 – Q: Do Blood Claw that Counter-Attack get a +2 Attack bonus because of ‘Berserk Charge’?
A: No, just the normal +1 Attack bonus [clarification].

The Big Rulebook clearly states on page 74 'exactly as if they too had assaulted' so yes, BCs do get +2 attacks - RAW
Same again for BCs on bikes and for Ragnar Blackmane.
How did you come to the conclusion that they only get +1A?

Because the full rule for counterattack states: "If the test is successful, all models in the unit get the +1 assault bonus to their attacks, exactly if they had assaulted that turn." In other words, they get the normal assault bonus in a counter-attack, not the Berserk Charge bonus.

Since they get their normal assault bonus they'll be getting +2A since that is their normal assault bonus thanks to berserk charge...
If you use RAW, then that is fairly easy to prove with very little room for discussion.
Berserk Charge clearly states that they replace +1A with +2A when charging, and Counter Attack clearly states that they count as assaulting.
So, +2A...

Alrighty then, here we go.

RB.45C.01 I'll just disagree and say that one step away from your table edge is doubling back. So your call is (IMO) a Rules Change, not a clarification.

RB.63F.01 and 02 I agree with no pile-in/consolidate towards the non-WS vehicle, but why would they have to move 1" away from the non-WS vehicle? Rules do not require that, and as long as they meet all other requirements on the pile-in, why do they have to move away from the non-WS vehicle? I'd say that no additional models my contact the vehicle, but 5th ed rules do allow you to stay in contact with the vehicle.

RB.67A.02 Hmmm, what about Emergency Disembarkation?

RB.69B.01 Disagree. Only tanks can Ram, the ability to Tank Shock has no bearing.

RB.70H.01 Again, what about Emergency Disembarkation?

DH.31A.01 Spelling error, threat should be treat...........

Possible question, can Inquisitors (psykers) be allied with Black Templars, as long as they take no psychic powers?

Possible question, Are Ravenwing Landspeeders from a Ravenwing Attack squadron a scoring unit, ie able to control an objective?

ELD.35G.01 No, Intercept cannot be used on Walkers. Intercept ability may only be used on vehicles that do not have a WS, per the Eldar FAQ.

Possible question. Does or can Eldrad receive +1 attack if he chooses to use sword and pistol, or does the two special weapons rule take precedence? Same thing for Calgar and his fists/power sword?

IG.47.01 Hmmmmm, aren't codex versions of a USR supposed to supercede main rulbook versions? So the IG Sentinel should use the codex version which includes the may always deploy bit, right?

IG.38.01 Might clarify that some units can deploy normally while others can infitrate, and that a senitnel squadron can always be deployed (see IG.47.01 comment) regardless of what the rest of the platoon does.

NEC.21E.02 Earlier stated that special forms of movement could only be used (while falling back) if it moved the unit closer to their board edge. Why isn't that qualifier present here?

Might want to address WBB vs Sweeping Advance

ORK.55D.01 I'll just say I disagree and leave it at that

Ork.93H.01 As already stated, only Tanks can Ram, ability to Tank Shock does not confer the ability to Ram

SM.57H.02 Falling back, why not? As long as it takes them closer to their board edge? Yes, I realize this might be used to get them over 6" away from a unit escorting them off the table.

SM.73A.01 Techmarine is an IC with a unit, why doesn't he give up a separate kill point from the unit?

SW.GEN.01 Might want to add Landspeeder Storm to the list

SW.15G.01/RB.48A.02 Seems like the same question, but different answers...............


And Merry Christmas (or holiday of your choice/persuasion)

Saldiven wrote:A couple of things I noticed about the DE section of the FAQ.

For the DE poisoned blades and scissor hands, you reference the poisoned weapons rule from the main rule book. Does this mean that the DE poisoned weapons are no longer more potent than other races', or do they still wound on 2+ as per the codex?

By RAW, poisoned weapons can be anything from 2+ to 4+, so I don't think the DE poisoned weapons will change how they work. Visiting family for the holiday, so I don't have my DE codex available.

Saldiven wrote:
Also, I believe that the clarification in the DE FAQ for the Xenospasm refers to the fact that a single unit could have an IC armed with a Xenospasm and an upgrade character armed with a Terrorfex; if both were fired at the same unit, the negative modifiers to the Pinning test should be cumulative for both.

We'll look into it.

Redbeard wrote:

RB.67F.01 – Q: When a transport vehicle suffers a ‘Destroyed – explodes!’ result its passengers must be placed “where the vehicle used to be”. What exactly does this mean?

A: Passengers must be placed wholly inside the area of the table that the vehicle’s hull previously occupied. Any models that cannot fit entirely within this area or are within 1” of an enemy model are removed from play as a casualty. In addition, the models count as having disembarked from a vehicle (and so cannot assault the same turn if the vehicle wasn’t open-topped, for example) [rules change].

This is fairly harsh for a self-described Rules Change. There's nothing in the rules that indicates that models get auto-removed if they don't fit. Can you fit 20 bases within the footprint of the new official ork battlewagon model? If not, I think this is a very poor decision. Can you fit 10 bases within the footprint of a rhino? Or 12 within a chimera? And, if you can fit all the transportable models within the footprint of every relevant transport model, what's the point of making a case for models that don't fit?

I think you can, but we'll look into it. The first part of that answer is RAW, by the way. Then second part really is more of a clarification than a change (and only applies if the vehicle is destroyed in the owning player's turn).

Redbeard wrote:

the same movement phase it moves ‘flat out’ (by ramming another vehicle, for example) are the models onboard destroyed?

A: No, in this case all models onboard count as being destroyed [clarification].

That doesn't make sense. The question asks are the models destroyed. The answer says No, they count as being destroyed. If you say 'No', doesn't that mean they're not destroyed?

Typo!

Redbeard wrote:

[For drop pods that are unable to open] both players can agree before the game to either pretend, to the best of their abilities, that the doors are open and both players can see ‘through’ the core for line of sight purposes, or they can agree to play that the model blocks line of sight ‘as is’

What if the two players cannot agree? Is there a default behaviour?

The mighty D6 shall decide... (added to the v2.1 review list)

Redbeard wrote:

BT.29A.01 – Q: Do Black Templar models in Terminator Armor always count as stationary when shooting a rapid fire weapon? Can they assault the same turn they shoot a rapid fire or heavy weapon?

A: They may assault the same turn they shoot with rapid fire or heavy weapons [rules change]. They do not, however always count as stationary when shooting a rapid fire weapon (just with heavy weapons) [RAW].

This is just weird. Why have a rules change for half of this, but not the other half? It seems counter-intuitive. Couldn't you just [rules change] both aspects of the question to simplify this?

To be honest, I can't remember exactly what was discussed here. I've flagged it for review.

Salvation122 wrote:I don't have my books to hand, as I'm out of town, but aren't Spore Mines mindless, specifically barring them from holding objectives?

I'd also disagree with spore mines granting kill points - they're effectively the same thing as the Scout Biker booby traps, except they float around. They're bullets, not infantry.

They can't hold objectives. But they can contest objectives, and they're definitely units.

Yes, its a harsh ruling, but the only way around it is to essentially make up rules and then apply them to bunches of other similar things.

finally, that idiotic Dok tools thing is over and done with.

don_mondo wrote:
RB.45C.01 I'll just disagree and say that one step away from your table edge is doubling back. So your call is (IMO) a Rules Change, not a clarification.

Depends on how you interpret "doubling back". but the rules are pretty clear when they say "full fall back move in any direction".

don_mondo wrote:
RB.63F.01 and 02 I agree with no pile-in/consolidate towards the non-WS vehicle, but why would they have to move 1" away from the non-WS vehicle? Rules do not require that, and as long as they meet all other requirements on the pile-in, why do they have to move away from the non-WS vehicle? I'd say that no additional models my contact the vehicle, but 5th ed rules do allow you to stay in contact with the vehicle.

Basically, because A) multiple combats involving vehicles ignores the vehicles, and pile-in moves may not be not be used to contact enemy units not involved in the assault. Since you ignore the vehicles, they're not involved in the assault for the pile-in moves.

don_mondo wrote:
RB.67A.02 Hmmm, what about Emergency Disembarkation?

Flagged for review.

don_mondo wrote:
RB.69B.01 Disagree. Only tanks can Ram, the ability to Tank Shock has no bearing.

Where does it say that?

don_mondo wrote:
Possible question, can Inquisitors (psykers) be allied with Black Templars, as long as they take no psychic powers?

Possible question, Are Ravenwing Landspeeders from a Ravenwing Attack squadron a scoring unit, ie able to control an objective?

Added for review.

don_mondo wrote:
ELD.35G.01 No, Intercept cannot be used on Walkers. Intercept ability may only be used on vehicles that do not have a WS, per the Eldar FAQ.

Good catch.

don_mondo wrote:
Possible question. Does or can Eldrad receive +1 attack if he chooses to use sword and pistol, or does the two special weapons rule take precedence? Same thing for Calgar and his fists/power sword?

Flagged for review.

don_mondo wrote:
IG.47.01 Hmmmmm, aren't codex versions of a USR supposed to supercede main rulbook versions? So the IG Sentinel should use the codex version which includes the may always deploy bit, right?

Flagged for review.

don_mondo wrote:
IG.38.01 Might clarify that some units can deploy normally while others can infitrate, and that a senitnel squadron can always be deployed (see IG.47.01 comment) regardless of what the rest of the platoon does.

Actually, that's a trickier one. The rules for command platoons are actually different than the rules for regular platoons.

don_mondo wrote:
NEC.21E.02 Earlier stated that special forms of movement could only be used (while falling back) if it moved the unit closer to their board edge. Why isn't that qualifier present here?

Monolith is moving the models.

don_mondo wrote:Might want to address WBB vs Sweeping Advance

People actually think they get WBB against Sweeping Advance?

don_mondo wrote:
ORK.55D.01 I'll just say I disagree and leave it at that

Okay.

don_mondo wrote:
SM.57H.02 Falling back, why not? As long as it takes them closer to their board edge? Yes, I realize this might be used to get them over 6" away from a unit escorting them off the table.

Falling back is involuntary movement, essentially. Gate is voluntary movement.

don_mondo wrote:
SM.73A.01 Techmarine is an IC with a unit, why doesn't he give up a separate kill point from the unit?

He's not an IC until the cannon is destroyed.

don_mondo wrote:
SW.GEN.01 Might want to add Landspeeder Storm to the list

Probably do.

don_mondo wrote:
SW.15G.01/RB.48A.02 Seems like the same question, but different answers...............

Good catch.

FYI, we've tried to be as consistent as possible, but the review process took up three 2-3 hour conference calls over four evenings, so its possible we've missed something. If you find something that appears self-contradictory, please help us by letting us know.

LPetersson wrote:
Since they get their normal assault bonus they'll be getting +2A since that is their normal assault bonus thanks to berserk charge...
If you use RAW, then that is fairly easy to prove with very little room for discussion.
Berserk Charge clearly states that they replace +1A with +2A when charging, and Counter Attack clearly states that they count as assaulting.
So, +2A...

I agree. +1 Attack would be a rules change, not a rules clarification. I don't think one can argue +1 attack instead of +2 attack without destroying the Codex>Rulebook formula we have been given.

I think you need to do a better job of explaining the situation that applies here with some sort of examples:

RB.41C.01 – Q: The rules on page 41 seem to indicate
that a unit fighting in an existing close combat that is
charged by another enemy unit cannot direct their
attacks at this new threat. Is this correct?
A: No. The “beginning of the combat” is after all assault
moves are completed, therefore a model in base contact with
multiple enemy units can always choose to attack an enemy
unit that has just charged it [RAW].

First off let quote the actual rules themselves

RB.41C - ATTACKING
In Multiple Combats, when it is time for a model to attack, the following extra rules apply:

Models that were engaged with just one of the enemy units at the beginning of the combat (before any model attacked) must attack that unit.

Models that were engaged with more than one enemy unit at the beginning of the combat (before any model attacked) may split their attacks freely between those units. Declare how they are splitting their attacks immediately before rolling to hit.

I believe what you are trying to say here is that this rule applies in a model by model situation not in a unit by unit situation as you believe it is currently and generally believed.

Secondly, under your ruling, I am having a hard time understanding the situation that would force the attacking model to trigger this rule and only get to attack a model from an enemy unit that it was engaged with previous to the defined 'beginning of combat'

Again descriptions to support this FAQ would be welcome

No offence, but Blood Claws not getting the +2A has no basis in RAW - or even RAI for that matter. Units that have the Counter Attack that pass a leadership are counted as charging - in normal circumstances this means +1A as presented in the BRB. In Blood Claws case, they have a modifier which takes precedence.

Another example - a unit which has both Counter Attack and Furious Charge (I don't think there is, but it's the best analogy I can think of.) If it passed its leadership check, would it not get +1S and +1I as well? Yes, because it moves "Exactly as if charging"

I've got one issue with this FAQ:
BA.06DD.01 – Q: Do Blood Angels models in
Terminator Armor always count as stationary when
shooting a rapid fire weapon?
A: No they do not [RAW]

WHAT?! I'm sorry but this just seems like shoddy GW copy pasting, and not a RAW thing.

I've got one you can add as well.
Could you please clarify what the "Sever the head and destroy the body" asset is from Apocalypse reload? It is given by a marine datasheet but is not actually in the assets section of Apocalypse or Reload. Most places play it as "Trophy Kill."

Centurian99 wrote:don_mondo wrote:

RB.69B.01 Disagree. Only tanks can Ram, the ability to Tank Shock has no bearing.


Where does it say that?

main rulebook page 68 under main heading of "TANKS", the second paragraph is one sentence.......

Tanks follow the normal rules for vehicles, with the additions and exceptions given below.

Then the first subsection under the TANKS main heading is Tank Shock! followed by Death or Glory and then RAMMING both found on page 69.

So clearly (cough) the rules for tak shock and ramming are subsets of the TANK rules. Also it constantly describes the vehicle that is in questions each times as a TANK. The only reason it switches to vehicle in the generic sense is to describe both the tank doing the ramming, and the target which may not be a tank so the word vehicle is used there. The special rule of +1 for mass if the vehicle is a tank is listed because when determining the potential damage done by the vehicle that gets rammed, the target vehicle may or may not be a tank, so it may or may not get the +1 for a tanks mass.

Clear as mud? I tend to type as I think , so this may not be as clear as intended. to summarize.....tank shcok and ramming are subsets of the TANKS rules...so therefore they apply to TANKS.

m'kay?

You are reaching here with this one:

RB.67A.02 – Q: If a unit embarks on a transport and
in the same movement phase the transport is
‘Destroyed’ (by ramming another vehicle, for
example) are the models onboard allowed to
disembark?
A: No, in this case all models onboard count as being
destroyed [clarification].
Ref: RB.70H.01

You need to clarify that this applies to only passengers of a fast moving vehicle (as you cite in your rules reference). As otherwise this clearly contradicts the RAW on page 67 for passengers of vehicle that is not moving fast.

APOC.91C.02 – Q: Since Gargantuan Creatures’ close
combat attacks against vehicles count as Ordnance,
do they get to roll 2D6 and pick the highest result for
each hit?
A: No, their Attacks only count as Ordnance when rolling on
the Vehicle Damage table, not when rolling for Armor
Penetration [RAW].


yakface but doesn't ordnance in 5th edition not give any bonus to the damage chart? Doesn't that mean that the Gargantuan creature would only be for Armour penetration rolls then? more clarification on this would be appreciated.

LPetersson wrote: SW.06A.02 – Q: Does ‘Storm Caller’ really allow the unit to ‘strike first’ in close combat?
A: No, when assaulted the unit simply counts as being in cover. This means any charging enemies who direct any of their attacks towards models protected by Storm Caller counts as having assaulted through cover. Ignore this rule if the protected models were already locked in combat from a previous turn when charged. A unit protected by Storm Caller that assaults an enemy through cover still strikes at their regular Initiative [clarification].

It's worth clarifying this so it says that it's only when attacking through cover that combat is resolved in order of initiative.
When assaulting a unit that's not in cover a unit protected by Storm Caller would strike first (Except for attacks with I1 of course).

We actually have an inherent problem with the storm caller rules and the new 5th edition basic ruleset. The problem is that in current 5th edition rules, models' initiative are only lowered to 1 for assaulting into/through cover if they have to take a difficult terrain test. Therefore, such models as Striking Scorpions with Stalker will never have to worry about their initiatives being lowered when they assault into cover. Now, because cover doesn't work the same as it did when the SW codex was written, we have an interesting problem. We can go the strictly codex>rulebook route and say that units under the effect of Storm Caller strike first when assaulted simply because the codex entry says so, even though it goes directly against the basic rule of assaulting into or through cover. Or we can go by the actual rules and say that units assaulting a storm callered pack of SWs do not have anything done to their initiatives because they dont' have to roll for difficult terrain.

An interesting quandary. I think the solution is unfortunately clear. Its clear because we have the precedent of codex > rulebook, but its unfortunate because that paradigm leads to a direct contradiction of the rulebook on the part of the codex, which is, of course, old beyond all reasoning. Fortunately, however, this will all be taken care of sometime in this coming year. Can't wait.

Just to pipe in real quick, can this please not become another "tank shock is/is not ramming" post. We have plenty of those in YMDC.

And seriously, Blood Claws not receiving their +2 on Counter Attack really seems to go against Codex>Rule Book.

The one about the gate of infinity is going to cause a ragestorm. Especially since it was unofficially already ruled the other way.

I second the 'Why do spore mines give kps?'

It's idiotic that if I biovore misses, it gives the enemy a kp...

Also, spawn that are created from the enemy should not give out KP's...

Both of these fall under the [Rules Change] dealing with absurd rules...

skyth wrote:I second the 'Why do spore mines give kps?'

It's idiotic that if I biovore misses, it gives the enemy a kp...

Also, spawn that are created from the enemy should not give out KP's...

Both of these fall under the [Rules Change] dealing with absurd rules...

Aren't these exactly the kind of situations where we should step in and change the rule?