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.

Howdy folks,

Attached to the post below is the latest version (v2.1) of the Independent National Warhammer 40,000 Tournament FAQ (INAT FAQ), produced primarily for Adepticon 2009.

As promised, we've taken all the feedback that we got from you guys and from a variety of other sources across the internet regarding the initial 2.0 release and we've done our best to incorporate as much of it as we could.

Barring any major spelling or formatting issues (which is always a possibility despite all the cross-checking) this will effectively be the FINAL version of the INAT FAQ for before Adepticon 2009 in April.

Please note that several rulings (some rather major) have been changed or reversed since the 2.0 version due to feedback. Rulings in the 2.1 document that have been significantly altered from the 2.0 version have been denoted as such with a 'plus sign' ( + ) before the question # and have their 'answer text' colored red (just like last year) to make it easy for you to spot what has been changed.


Further feedback is always welcomed and can be done so in this thread or by sending an email to:

adepticon09@gmail.com

All feedback received from here on out will most certainly be considered for future revisions of the INAT FAQ, although no other major revisions will occur until after Adepticon has finished.

Thanks again to everyone who helped out this process by giving us quality feedback and constructive criticism, we certainly appreciate it!

With all due respect, several rulings strike me as either counterintuitive or damaging to gameplay.

1. Cyclops bombs giving off a kill point (IA1.154.01) when used correctly means players taking the unit are penalised just so RAW can be stuck to.

2. The Ejection Seats aircraft upgrade giving off extra kill points (IA1.263C.03) means you're actively penalised for taking it. Given the Marauder ejects 6 crewmembers (IA1.263C.02), you'd actually turn a 1-KP unit into a 7-KP one in the unlikely case that you were playing Apocalypse Kill Points mission.

3. Command Platoons count as only one unit for Dawn of War scenarios (IG.38.01), but Infantry Platoons don't (IG.41.01)? This should be either one or the other, or possibly the other way around.

4. Several rulings are made without any kind of justifications, such as superheavy vehicles not being able to use roads (APOC.92E.01). There's no basis for that ruling, provided the road is physically large enough. I do not like how for some questions the FAQ sticks to rigid RAW to the detriment of everything, and for others cuts fast and loose in order to improve gameplay. RB.94D.02 is another example where the FAQ explicitly makes up rules even though the as-written content of the rules is absolutely clear.

All in all, I am sadly not impressed.

Agamemnon2 wrote:With all due respect, several rulings strike me as either counterintuitive or damaging to gameplay.

1. Cyclops bombs giving off a kill point (IA1.154.01) when used correctly means players taking the unit are penalised just so RAW can be stuck to.

2. The Ejection Seats aircraft upgrade giving off extra kill points (IA1.263C.03) means you're actively penalised for taking it. Given the Marauder ejects 6 crewmembers (IA1.263C.02), you'd actually turn a 1-KP unit into a 7-KP one in the unlikely case that you were playing Apocalypse Kill Points mission.

Units when destroyed give up Kill Points. That's the way the system works. There are currently no units in the game that are exempt from this rule so if we started doing it for certain units, where does it stop? What becomes the determining factor for when a unit doesn't give up a Kill Point and when it does? And no matter what line we draw there will be people saying we're "making up rules" willy-nilly. There is absolutely no clear way in the rules to make a distinction that some units aren't worth a Kill Point while other aren't.

The fact is, taking these items gives you a benefit in an objective mission, in that you have another unit that can contest an enemy unit, and a detriment in a Kill Point mission (they are worth a Kill Point). That is the way the game has been designed up until this point and we are only following that lead by sticking to the RAW in this instance.

Does this make things like the Ejector seat way to dangerous to even think about taking unless you know you're not playing a Kill Point game? Pretty much. But that's true of many pieces of wargear in the game now (Tyranid Thornback, etc).

3. Command Platoons count as only one unit for Dawn of War scenarios (IG.38.01), but Infantry Platoons don't (IG.41.01)? This should be either one or the other, or possibly the other way around.

GW has made it clear that players are to follow the wording in the codex. If you check it out the wording for the Command Platoon is actually different from the standard Platoon. We are only following the rules as printed in the codex. I don't know why GW chose to write the rules for the Command Platoon slightly differently from the Infantry Platoon (likely just a mistake), but it is what it is.

If we gave Infantry Platoons the ability to all set up as a single unit in Dawn of War people would say: "What basis do you have to give them that ability?" And if we remove the ability for Command Platoons to set up as a single unit then people would say: "How come you're ignoring the RAW"?

4. Several rulings are made without any kind of justifications, such as superheavy vehicles not being able to use roads (APOC.92E.01). There's no basis for that ruling, provided the road is physically large enough. I do not like how for some questions the FAQ sticks to rigid RAW to the detriment of everything, and for others cuts fast and loose in order to improve gameplay. RB.94D.02 is another example where the FAQ explicitly makes up rules even though the as-written content of the rules is absolutely clear.

Check out the rules for roads on page 57. A vehicle has to move 'cruising speed' on a road in order to benefit from it. To my knowledge all land-based Super-Heavies can only move 6" so they effectively cannot benefit from a road. If there is a super-heavy that moves faster than 6" I apologize and I'll make sure that the next version of the FAQ is a little more clear that it only applies to standard super-heavies that move 6", but the ruling is indeed based on the rules and not some wild justification we came up with.

You say that RB.94D.02 (the ruling for vehicles which are too big to fit on the table moving on from reserves) makes up rules even though the content of the rules are absolutely clear? How exactly are the rules clear? If a Monolith or Super-Heavy vehicle moves onto the table from Reserves and cannot make it all the way onto the table with their 6" move what happens?

And does this mean people moving Land Raiders onto the table *have* to move cruising speed or turn their vehicle sideways to get onto the table on the turn they arrive? Because the rules don't state that a vehicle HAS to move all the way onto the table, in fact they don't cover the possibility of a vehicle being too large to not fit onto the table in a single move at all.

In fact I'll go as far as to say there absolutely is no clear way to play this situation by the rules. So I would love to hear your version of how we should have ruled on this (or rather how the rules tell us to play without a ruling).

All in all, I am sadly not impressed.

I'm sorry you feel that way. We did have a nice long feedback period for people to give us feedback for the document to be changed in time for Adepticon.

If you have any more feedback you'd like to share it will definitely be taken into consideration for future revisions of the document.


But I would like to say one thing about the idea that this (or any) FAQ just doesn't "get it right", as some people have said (this isn't directed specifically at you Agamemnon, but rather in general). Here's the thing. This is just a big document of grey areas in the rules. We have answered them to the best our personal abilities based on the information that we have.

For everyone who thinks we did a crappy job on the actual rulings, take a second and think about it. If we were to hand the FAQ over to you and say: "Change these rulings so that they're *right*", what would happen?

You would change the rulings to whatever you think is the correct way to rule. You may even think all your rulings are just the RAW.

If the FAQ with your rulings is published, guess what happens? All of a sudden your opinions on the RAW suddenly come into conflict with other people's ideas of the RAW. Questions you think you ruled by the RAW other people are suddenly saying you're 'making up rules'! Then you get people saying you obviously should have ruled based on intent on this one issue because playing the RAW in that case is just stupid.

In short, no matter what criteria you use to make your rulings, other people will disagree vehemently with it, and this is an absolute fact. Anyone who thinks out there that they could make all the rulings in a FAQ that everyone would be pleased with is just fooling themselves.

On the other hand, Yakeface, i would like to thankyou for this and i thought that all of it made sense and is a great piece of work again.

thankyou and well done

yakface wrote:Check out the rules for roads on page 57. A vehicle has to move 'cruising speed' on a road in order to benefit from it. To my knowledge all land-based Super-Heavies can only move 6" so they effectively cannot benefit from a road. If there is a super-heavy that moves faster than 6" I apologize and I'll make sure that the next version of the FAQ is a little more clear that it only applies to standard super-heavies that move 6", but the ruling is indeed based on the rules and not some wild justification we came up with.

The Skullhamma moves a maximum 24" per turn, but because it was written for 4E, it does not use the "speed bands" introduced in 5E. By RAW it cannot move at "cruising speed", no matter how fast it goes.

As for the rest, it just goes to show how incredibly badly designed the game rules are, when even the most reasonable interpretation aimed at providing clarity and consistency has so many cases of blatantly senseless situations. The fault isn't so much with you as it is with GW for writing this crap to begin with. Forge World, too, takes the blame for not updating their rules with the new edition (except of course the GW golden boys, Space Marines).

IAV5 page 141, regarding the Cyclops, states that a Cyclops that self-detonates is not worth Victory Points, but one that's destroyed by enemy fire is (even if it explodes when that happens). The operator is worth VP in all cases. Do I believe that this should be extended to cover Kill Points? Yes. If you don't feel like it's within the INAT FAQ mandate to do that, fine, in that case my grievance is with FW. The Cyclops is about the most fragile unit in the game, so I do not think it unreasonable that the enemy can only harvest points off it via direct action, as opposed to sitting back and letting me detonate it on target.

As for things like Ejection Seats, where there is simply no way to preserve the original effect of the upgrade (without introducing half-Kill-Points), I think it'd be wisest to follow the Thornback example and rule the upgrade as obsolete and not available anymore (of course, 5E games with flyers follow the Apocalypse rules in almost all cases, and consequently don't use Kill Points to begin with).

EDIT: As for the Objectives/Kill points tradeoff, the Cyclops is explicitly prohibited from contesting objectives, so it's not like I'm getting anything in return for giving free KP to the enemy.

EDIT2: I suppose I'm more than slightly frustrated that every single Kill Points related ruling rapes my IG army more and more. My command squads are worth 2KP, my field artillery worth 2KP per gun, my Cyclops 2KP per team. As it stands, my 1000pt army has over 20KP in total, despite being underpowered to the point of ridiculousness.

The fact that this document says that the Deffrolla cannot be used on vehicles makes me a sad panda. :( Especially given that the rules specifically say that ramming IS a tank shock, albeit to be resolved with a special set of rules. Shooting a vehicle is resolved with special rules too, but that doesn't make it not shooting.

There are some other things in there that strike me as funny or weird as well, but...*shrugs*

Point of my post is this:

Does anyone outside of Adepticon use the INAT FAQ? I've brought it up a few times during games with folks, and asked if they wanted to use it to settle any potential issue, and every time I've been scoffed at, and told that no on uses it outside of the Adepticon tournament.

Anyone?

Our group uses the INAT. It helps alleviate a lot of arguments. Regardless of whether or not we agree with every ruling, the document provides a sound foundation for answering questions that may arise.

I also believe the 40K Radio group is using it as their document resource.

Dashofpepper wrote:The fact that this document says that the Deffrolla cannot be used on vehicles makes me a sad panda. :( Especially given that the rules specifically say that ramming IS a tank shock, albeit to be resolved with a special set of rules. Shooting a vehicle is resolved with special rules too, but that doesn't make it not shooting.

While I personally agree with you from a RAW perspective, our revised ruling is in line with how both the UKGT house rules and GW's John Spencer are both ruling the issue and I do believe that if GW ever FAQs the issue that is the way they will rule too (but, of course, no guarantees on that).

Any reason why we need this unofficial FAQ?

Gw rules work well enough, and many of judgements in this FAQ seem rather...emotional and lacking justification.

If a rule isn't clear, D6 it off. I have participated in a great many Grand Tournaments and have never seen a need for the players themselves to get this involved in order to change the RAW from GW.

Sorry if I ruffle feathers as Yakface I believe is head honcho here, but as aveteran 40k player (for 10+ years) I am just upset and kind of outraged at this FAQ.

Submit it to GW, if they ok, then I'd be cool with it, but I can guarantee by the way this was written it wouldn't pass their standards.

Hope you guys are taking good and bad feedback...both are important.

You listened to the 40k Radio podcast; you heard the justification for the INAT FAQ.

I am just upset and kind of outraged at this FAQ.

This is the sort of attitude I can't comprehend. No one has a gun to your head, forcing you to use this resource against your will. It is a tool, available for people to use or not as they choose, and happens to be in use at Adepticon. If it angers you so, then a) don't use it; and b) perhaps you are taking your toy soldiers too seriously.

At the end of the day, it's a set of house rules, developed to allow 4 40k tournaments to run smoothly and consistently at the largest GW tournament event in the world. It's also available to anyone else who cares to make use of it for their own events.

Submit it to GW, if they ok, then I'd be cool with it, but I can guarantee by the way this was written it wouldn't pass their standards.

As noted in the 40k Radio show, GW has it. Last year, they borrowed extensively from the INAT FAQ 1.1 to develop their published FAQs (see the acknowledgements at the ends of the CSM FAQ, the Eldar FAQ, the Tau FAQ, the DH FAQ, the DE FAQ, the IG FAQ, the Necron FAQ, and the Ork FAQ). One objective is not to supplant GW as a rules-making entity, but to collate all the questions into an easily referenced document, to make it easier for GW to answer the questions, or not, as they choose.

I guess I'm more worried of possible precedent setting with things like this.

I like to have one set of rules no matter where I go to play. I don't want to go to Adepticon and have differently interpreted rules, or to another tourney and then have their house rules in effect.

I know a lot of work was done by Yakface and his council on this, I just don't think it was needed.

Then again Adepticon isn't so much a competitive tourney so I'm hoping the 'house-rules' don't catch on with other tourneys.

I will say the FAQ has a lot of good things in it, but they are all unofficial, and maybe I'm crazy but I am a nutter on making sure things are RAW all the time, and it bothers me when people circumvent this somehow...

Joyous_Oblivion wrote:I guess I'm more worried of possible precedent setting with things like this.

I like to have one set of rules no matter where I go to play. I don't want to go to Adepticon and have differently interpreted rules, or to another tourney and then have their house rules in effect.

Strangely enough, this is PRECISELY why the FAQ became necessary. People would show up at the national tournaments with different interpretations of the same ruleset, and acrimony ensued. The FAQ provides a base level of expectations, in that you can learn ahead of time exactly how judges will rule, if called upon to interpret various topics.

We'd all prefer to have something official. Unfortunately, GW isn't willing to put forth the necessary effort, and RAW can only take us so far.

Here is how I use the FAQ for local games including tournaments. If there is a question regarding the rules not covered by an official GW FAQ/errata then I will reference the INAT FAQ to see if it is covered. The INAT FAQ is used as a reference but not as a final ruling. If it helps clear up a question that is great but if the answer is not accepted then we ignore it. Overall I like the FAQ but I do think there are too many rules changes and it is a big document... Often the same set of answers appear in multiple places - I would have rather seen one set of answers that are made reference to as many times as needed. I would like to see the FAQ streamlined next year and a lot less rules changes. I do appreciate all the time and work put into this document but I will say that the numerous instances of rules changes is the main point of contention for most people that don't like the FAQ overall. Some of the rules changes have a drastic impact on certain armies and I think these could be detrimental to some people coming from outside the Chicago area to play. Yakface said during his interview that no one is forced to use the FAQ if both players agree... but given the competitive nature of Adepticon in general I doubt that a competitive player who is aware that a specific rules change could give them the upper hand during a game would choose to forgo the use of this document if their opponent was not happy about it.

I do like the rules clarifications and I think this is one of the most helpful aspects of the FAQ.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Here is how I use the FAQ for local games including tournaments. If there is a question regarding the rules not covered by an official GW FAQ/errata then I will reference the INAT FAQ to see if it is covered. The INAT FAQ is used as a reference but not as a final ruling. If it helps clear up a question that is great but if the answer is not accepted then we ignore it.

Perfect.

GBF wrote:Overall I like the FAQ but I do think there are too many rules changes and it is a big document... Often the same set of answers appear in multiple places - I would have rather seen one set of answers that are made reference to as many times as needed.

It is useful to have the cross-referencing, largely because the same question may occur in many different contexts. But it's a much more user-friendly document in its electronic form, where it is both searchable and clickable.

Some of the rules changes have a drastic impact on certain armies

Do you have any specific examples? I've heard this before from other people, but no one has ever been able to provide a useful example thereof. The overwhelming majority of the time, after rereading, they realize "that's how we played it anyway."

Let's take the example of 10 Marines mounted in a rhino. Now suppose the rhino is destroyed by an nob power klaw and the boyz are all up against one long side of the transport. First you cannot fit 10 Marines exactly on top of where the wrecked rhino was, in fact you can only place six. So right off the bat you have lost four Marines because you can't fit them on top. To me this is a big dterent to bringing a mech list for Marines. Also the orks are situated against one long side, possibly more if either end of the rhino is exposed so you lose at least three more Marines. Transports are death traps again which is something GW was trying to away from in the new rules. No one plays it this way that I know of and I have heard people say explicitly they won't. Sure you could always didembark but I feel this would unnecessary except for the rules change. Seven dead Marines because their transport was destroyed seems a bit much to me.

Have you ever tried placing a large unit of terminators on top of an LRC?

G

I'm gonna side with Aggy on the Cyclops issue.

Why not simply translate its rules from 4th to 5th Ed?

Cannot Score or Contest (4th) = Unable to contest (5th)
Does not give up VP's when self detonating (4th) = Does not give up KP when self detonating (5th)

And then the other two points (enemy kills the Cyclops, they get KPs, enemy kills the Controller and gets a VP).

It's far easier to do that.

This 25 point unit already gives up more KP's than a 400 point unit of Chosen, why penelise players for actually using it as intended.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:I'm gonna side with Aggy on the Cyclops issue.

Why not simply translate its rules from 4th to 5th Ed?

Cannot Score or Contest (4th) = Unable to contest (5th)
Does not give up VP's when self detonating (4th) = Does not give up KP when self detonating (5th)

And then the other two points (enemy kills the Cyclops, they get KPs, enemy kills the Controller and gets a VP).

It's far easier to do that.

This 25 point unit already gives up more KP's than a 400 point unit of Chosen, why penelise players for actually using it as intended.

BYE

Because essentially we determined that GW has yet to declare any unit unable to contest an objective. And any unit that can contest an objective should also be worth a KP. That's the basic principle we applied to all the KP questions.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Let's take the example of 10 Marines mounted in a rhino. Now suppose the rhino is destroyed by an nob power klaw and the boyz are all up against one long side of the transport. First you cannot fit 10 Marines exactly on top of where the wrecked rhino was, in fact you can only place six. So right off the bat you have lost four Marines because you can't fit them on top. To me this is a big dterent to bringing a mech list for Marines. Also the orks are situated against one long side, possibly more if either end of the rhino is exposed so you lose at least three more Marines. Transports are death traps again which is something GW was trying to away from in the new rules. No one plays it this way that I know of and I have heard people say explicitly they won't. Sure you could always didembark but I feel this would unnecessary except for the rules change. Seven dead Marines because their transport was destroyed seems a bit much to me.

Have you ever tried placing a large unit of terminators on top of an LRC?

So, how would YOU interpret the instructions for a penetrating 6 in such a situation? Ignore the "surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be" aspect of the rule entirely?

It's too strict and gives too big of an advantage to certain armies.

G

Centurian99 wrote:Because essentially we determined that GW has yet to declare any unit unable to contest an objective. And any unit that can contest an objective should also be worth a KP. That's the basic principle we applied to all the KP questions.

That's actually an odd position from them to take, considering how many units were unable to contest or claim objectives in the previous editions. Not only the Cyclops, but Spore Mines, Nurglings, et cetera. I'm struggling with their reasoning there, other than "no unit should be insignificant re: victory conditions".

Ah well, there's a hope that FW will have to revise their IG rules once the new codex comes out, hopefully this will be addressed there.

Green Blow Fly wrote:It's too strict and gives too big of an advantage to certain armies.

Mayhap, but my question is an honest one: how would you interpret the rules for passengers getting out of a destroyed transport in such a situation? Is there, in fact, ANY way to do so without changing the rules one way or another?

Agamemnon2 wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:Because essentially we determined that GW has yet to declare any unit unable to contest an objective. And any unit that can contest an objective should also be worth a KP. That's the basic principle we applied to all the KP questions.

That's actually an odd position from them to take, considering how many units were unable to contest or claim objectives in the previous editions. Not only the Cyclops, but Spore Mines, Nurglings, et cetera. I'm struggling with their reasoning there, other than "no unit should be insignificant re: victory conditions".

Ah well, there's a hope that FW will have to revise their IG rules once the new codex comes out, hopefully this will be addressed there.

New edition, new rules for claiming objectives. The rules are fairly clear in the missions (p. 91): "...and no enemy unit (any unit, scoring or not) within 3" or it."

Here's what we know:
1) GW intentionally changed scoring units.
2) GW intentionally changed a wide variety of other rules.
3) No post-5th edition codex specifically bars any unit from contesting.
4) Nothing excludes spore mines, cyclops, etc. from contesting objectives. (So far as I know, only Flyers are banned from contesting, per Apoc rules.)

Here's what we suspect:
A) Kill Points are intended to balance out the value of having extra units in Objective missions.

It'd be lovely if GW/FW would step in to clarify their stance on things like spore mines & cyclops vehicles, when it comes to objectives and kill points. But in the meantime, the INAT FAQ writers have exactly two options:

First, stick with the RAW. There's nothing unclear here, and no ambiguities to interpret.
Second, start making a list of "exceptions."

They decided on the first option, as the RAW isn't unworkable, and it's no more absurd than IG platoon command squads being worth 2 KPs each.

For the first time ever I think I agree with GBF..

They give unfair advantages to some.

I would just let the squad disembark beside the wreck, look to the rules for emergency disembarkation for help here. Obviously if a bunch of models are too big to fit on top of their transport they were never intended to in the first place. This is another reason why people do not like all the rules changes. No I know of plays it that way either.

G

Janthkin wrote:

Agamemnon2 wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:Because essentially we determined that GW has yet to declare any unit unable to contest an objective. And any unit that can contest an objective should also be worth a KP. That's the basic principle we applied to all the KP questions.

That's actually an odd position from them to take, considering how many units were unable to contest or claim objectives in the previous editions. Not only the Cyclops, but Spore Mines, Nurglings, et cetera. I'm struggling with their reasoning there, other than "no unit should be insignificant re: victory conditions".

Ah well, there's a hope that FW will have to revise their IG rules once the new codex comes out, hopefully this will be addressed there.

New edition, new rules for claiming objectives. The rules are fairly clear in the missions (p. 91): "...and no enemy unit (any unit, scoring or not) within 3" or it."

You're arguing against an opinion I've dissuaded from having, which is that your INAT FAQ should be changed to conform to common sense. There's no need to protest that much, methinks. GW's rules are absolutely adamant here. They're also bloody stupid.

On Mixed Imperial Armies:

According to: http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/pdf/ia2-update.pdf the cost of a Chimera for Inquisitorial is significantly reduced from the price of an Imperial Guard Chimera as published. Is this intended, or should inquisitorial forces use the values for transports as published in their respective Codex to ensure consistent points values? (To ensure that inducted or allied imperial guard pay the same 70+ points rather than the updated 55+ points reflected in the IA2 update)

Oldgrue wrote:On Mixed Imperial Armies:

According to: http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/pdf/ia2-update.pdf the cost of a Chimera for Inquisitorial is significantly reduced from the price of an Imperial Guard Chimera as published. Is this intended, or should inquisitorial forces use the values for transports as published in their respective Codex to ensure consistent points values? (To ensure that inducted or allied imperial guard pay the same 70+ points rather than the updated 55+ points reflected in the IA2 update)

If you look at the list of allowed IA units for Adepticon you'll notice that any vehicle that is also found in a codex is not allowed in its IA form. This is, more than anything, done to maintain sanity as it would be crazy for the tournament organizers to try to figure out if people have legal army lists if some players are using the Rhino rules from IA while others are using the rules from the codex.

And this is especially true because in some cases, like with the Inquisitorial Chimera in the IA2 update, they contain rules that aren't even published yet (at least not until the new IG codex comes out).


So it was a pretty easy decision to make for this Adepticon: If a unit is found in both a codex and in IA, then you have to use the rules from the codex for it.

Since it was asked, my gaming group uses the INAT FAQ for our games. It just makes our lives a lot easier. Sometimes sure I roll my eyes at the ruling but the less time I spend arguing with someone, the happier I am, even if I get ruled against...and the fact of the matter is that there are a lot of weird situations in 40k, and GW is not the best at, well, actually making rulings about things.

I rarely find people playing in a random pickup game at a store who uses the INAT Faq, they typically have no idea what it is. But I don't play much outside of my small gaming group and the occasional tournament.

Centurian99 wrote:Because essentially we determined that GW has yet to declare any unit unable to contest an objective. And any unit that can contest an objective should also be worth a KP. That's the basic principle we applied to all the KP questions.

That's absurd.

The Cyclops has rules that state it cannot contest objectives. If you just follow those rules, there's no issue, and you don't have to change anything.

BYE

Thanks for taking the time to put this together. You did an outstanding job. There will always be that vocal minority who cries and whines no matter what you do simply by virtue of the fact that they do not possess the "conflict resolution" or "problem solving" life skills. It's not taught in school, unfortunately. It should be, IMO. At any rate, the "roll-off" rule was developed specifically for this very tiny group of people.

So for those who don't like to FAQ, pick up your six-sided dice and get ready to ROLL. Your input has been noted, your right to speak your mind preserved. Now pick up that six-sided die - you are clearly going to need it.

To everyone who worked on the FAQ, I would like to believe that most of us are glad you put forth the effort. It is appreciated.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:Because essentially we determined that GW has yet to declare any unit unable to contest an objective. And any unit that can contest an objective should also be worth a KP. That's the basic principle we applied to all the KP questions.

That's absurd.

The Cyclops has rules that state it cannot contest objectives. If you just follow those rules, there's no issue, and you don't have to change anything.

BYE

Hate to disagree with you, but you're wrong. The Cyclops has rules that prevents it from "claiming" an objective. It has no rules that prevent it from contesting one.

ForgeWorld FAQ wrote:
Can a Cyclops claim an objective/table quarter?
No it cannot.
Can a Cyclops operator claim an objective/table quarter on his own?
No he cannot.

If we'd interpreted that to include contesting as well as claiming, and therefore not made the cyclops or the controller worth KP, then we'd also have been forced to do the same for any other unit that can not claim. While it might make some "gut-sense" for units like spore mines, it leads to some other ridiculous conclusion.