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 (v2.2) of the Independent National Warhammer 40,000 Tournament FAQ (INAT FAQ), produced primarily for Adepticon 2009.

Some people may be wondering why are we putting out another update for the Independent National Warhammer 40,000 Tournament FAQ (INAT FAQ) so close to Adepticon when we said that the 2.1 version would be last one before the event. There are a couple of reasons.

Most importantly, Games Workshop has recently released an updated Warhammer 40,000 rulebook FAQ which contained some new rulings that needed to be taken into consideration in the wording for a few of our FAQ rulings. Second, we received some last second questions from players attending Adepticon and given that we already had to put out a revised version of our FAQ because of GW's update, it only made sense to throw in these extra questions as well.

However, we've gone out of our way to make sure that none of our existing rulings from the 2.1 version have been completely reversed. We consciously made this decision because with such short notice until Adepticon we know that many people won't notice or have time to read the 2.2 version and we want to make sure that everything in the 2.1 version is still applicaple (and 99.9% of it is).

As always, any questions/rulings that have been altered from the 2.1 version have been denoted as such with a 'plus sign' ( + ) before the question # and have their 'answer text' colored red (just as with the 2.1 version) 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 be considered for future revisions of the INAT FAQ, although no further 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!

I like the clarified response to question APOC.92E.01, which we talked about in the previous INAT FAQ thread (the superheavies-on-the-road question), it delivers the rationale better than the previous wording.

A lot of the changes have nothing to do with the FAQ. This is slowed. Can we anticipate version 2.3?

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:A lot of the changes have nothing to do with the FAQ. This is slowed. Can we anticipate version 2.3?

G

No more, I promise. We toyed with not releasing a new version (since that's what we said we were going to do) but we really did need to update it to take into consideration GW's ruling on psychic powers vs. embarked units.

We slightly altered an existing question and added 3 more to deal with situations arising from that ruling.


But as stated in the original post, as we were putting out another version for this reason why not add in a few questions that we've received since? None of our existing rulings have really changed from 2.1 so it won't be a problem if someone hasn't read the most current version.

Yak, thanks for the time and effort put into compiling this. While I'm not able to attend Adepticon (again) it's nice to know effort is being put into heading off any misunderstandings and rules arguments.

Flyers not being able to use hover to start on the table, hellstrike missiles...

La la la la... I'm not listening anymore... too many rules this year.

G

yakface wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:A lot of the changes have nothing to do with the FAQ. This is slowed. Can we anticipate version 2.3?

G

No more, I promise. We toyed with not releasing a new version (since that's what we said we were going to do) but we really did need to update it to take into consideration GW's ruling on psychic powers vs. embarked units.

We slightly altered an existing question and added 3 more to deal with situations arising from that ruling.


But as stated in the original post, as we were putting out another version for this reason why not add in a few questions that we've received since? None of our existing rulings have really changed from 2.1 so it won't be a problem if someone hasn't read the most current version.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Flyers not being able to use hover to start on the table, hellstrike missiles...

La la la la... I'm not listening anymore... too many rules this year.

I asked about the Flyers thing (which only matters in the Gladiator) in January, and got an appropriate response.

Of course the Gladiator is going to result in some odd situations - it's the combination of "normal" 40k with Apocalypse, in ways they weren't designed to interact. And of course there are going to be additional questions asked about the interaction of apoc units with the 40k ruleset.

But the Hellstrike missiles thing doesn't even merit a complaint - the Apocalypse rulebook is pretty clear on the subject of blast markers (or the lack thereof), and Forgeworld answered the "Hellstrike as ordnance" thing themselves:

IA Apocalypse Q&A wrote:2. The Hellstrike missiles is listed as ordnance. Does this mean that they may now only fire that one missile at the cost of all its other weapons?
As an ordnance weapon a Hellstrike is fired instead of other weapons. It may fire as many missiles as you like though.

I stated hellstrike missiles are as stated here back in January on YMDC. I have no clue why this was added not until now... Don't care really. 'Unless specified' works for me.

G

Sorry i'm reading the FAQ for the 1st time and i've got a quick quesiton. Not sure if this has been asked i looked and couldnt find it. On page 11, talking about Jump Infantry... there is a question about Jet Pack models getting out of a transport. I thought that no Jump Inf model could ever get into a transport.

Thanks,
Loredragon2

Loredragon2 wrote:Sorry i'm reading the FAQ for the 1st time and i've got a quick quesiton. Not sure if this has been asked i looked and couldnt find it. On page 11, talking about Jump Infantry... there is a question about Jet Pack models getting out of a transport. I thought that no Jump Inf model could ever get into a transport.

Thanks,
Loredragon2

That ruling is in place for one reason: Drones disembarking from Tau vehicles when they're destroyed. It should be moved into the Tau section for that reason though!

Thanks.