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.

If you are looking to download the latest version of the INAT FAQ (or the INAT appendix) please visit the new INAT FAQ homepage here: INAT FAQ HOME PAGE (and you can always find that page from the 'INAT FAQ' link at the top of any page on Dakka).


If you are looking to submit questions for inclusion in future iterations of the INAT FAQ, then you've come to the right place!


The point of this thread is a place for you to submit questions you have about the Warhammer 40,000 5th edition rules (including codices) that you feel are not adequately clear in said rules. These questions, if legitimate, will be added to future editions of the INAT FAQ (Independent National Warhammer 40,000 Tournament FAQ). Each edition of this independent FAQ is sent to Games Workshop so that they can take the questions and put them into their official FAQs (with whatever answer they want) if they so choose.

If you have a question you think needs to be covered in an official GW FAQ, please take the time to download the latest version of the INAT FAQ (attached to this post below) and make sure that your question isn't already included. I know the document is very large, but it is organized by page numbers of the pertinent rulebooks/codices so it should be fairly easy for you to spot if your question is already included in there.

If you can, please try to include the page number of the codex/rulebook that your question stems from (if appropriate) along with your question, although you certainly don't have to!


Please DO NOT attempt to answer questions posted in this thread. That is not the point of this thread!

If you think the person asking the question has missed something very clear and obvious in the rules, then you can politely point out the rule and page you think they missed, but under no circumstance should you then engage in a discussion about the rule in question. If you need to have that discussion, OPEN ANOTHER THREAD IN THIS FORUM INSTEAD.

Rules discussions in this thread will be deleted to keep it clear for actual questions. Questions that are accepted to the INAT FAQ will be deleted from this thread.


Thanks again to everyone who has taken time to help out with this project in the past and the future!




P.S. Just to be clear, Games Workshop 'thanked' myself and the rest of the Adepticon rules council in some of their official FAQs because they utilized some of the question and answer wording from our INAT FAQ. I, and the rest of the Adepticon rules council, has absolutely no ability to get questions submitted to Games Workshop for consideration in their official FAQs beyond what any other gamer does (i.e. sending a question to GW via their mail/email address).

A suggestion if I may:
I think you should clarify how you deal with multiple modifiers to saves that might result it in being "better" than 2+.

For example, a Pathfinder Squad gets itself in a Ruined Structure that has been declared as a 3+ Cover save, which is then hit by 2 markerlights which are used to alter the cover save by -1, after which the Pathfinder Unit Goes to Ground..

Now, there are two ways this can go, imo. One only applies the 2+ "cap" at the end, and the second applies the 2+ cap at every point.

The "math" is as follows:

Example 1: Cap applies only at the "end":
Base Save ->Pathfinder Bonus ->Markerlight Penalty -> Gone to Ground Bonus -> 2+ cap 3+ ->1+ ->3+ -> 2+ -> 2+


Example 1: Cap applies at each "step":
Base Save ->Pathfinder Bonus ->Markerlight Penalty -> Gone to Ground Bonus -> 2+ cap 3+ ->1+(Changed to 2+)->4+ -> 3+ -> 3+

As you can see, this can result in differing results depending how it is played. In my opinion, I think the rules support the 1st example, but I have come across people who think it is the 2nd. As such, I believe a clarification is in order.

Eidolon wrote:A section on psykers is much needed, but i guess its been for a while.

What exactly are you referencing?

The rules for psykers in the rulebook are pretty sparse and not very confusing so there is no 'psyker' section in the rulebook portion of the INAT.

Instead, we cover individual issues with codex specific psychic abilities in the individual codex sections. Is there a specific part about psychic powers you don't feel we adequately address?

I'm going to try to clean up this thread a bit by addressing questions that likely won't be included in the INAT with explanations as to why. Even though these questions may not end up in the INAT, I want to sincerely thank everyone who posted for taking the time to submit the question and implore you to keep doing so in the future when you encounter other truly ambiguous situations in the rules:

Arschbombe wrote:Can an IC disembark from a transport in the same movement phase in which a unit embarks on the transport and joins with the IC? Does it matter if the transport moves or not?

The rules here (pg 67) state: "If an independent character (or even more than one) and a unit are both embarked in the same vehicle, they are automatically joined, just as if the character was within 2" of the unit. If either an independent character or a unit is already in a vehicle, the other my join them by embarking too (assuming, of course, that there is enough space left)."


While the 2nd sentence seems to indicate a choice by the player whether the IC and unit join or not, within the context of the first sentence, it is clear that anytime an IC and a unit are embarked together they count as being joined.

This means, that if a transport vehicle contains an IC from a previous turn and a unit moves up and embarks, the two are now considered joined. This means the IC cannot then disembark (either before or after the vehicle moves) as he is part of a unit that has already completed its movement for the phase.


While I can see the potential ambiguity this question addresses, the truth is, that this is a fairly unlikely question to actually encounter in-game and more importantly, the actual process of asking the question and providing the answer in the FAQ will likely be confusing to more players than it actually helps (most people will simply have to crack open their rulebook just to try to figure out why this is even a question worth asking).

Asherian Command wrote:well this came up in a game. The Dedicated Transports. Apparentley not anymore you can't take tactical squads in lander raiders. has this happened to everyone? yes or no? Also Can my Space Marine Chapter Kill a Warlord titan? Also can we make our own characters, and use a variety of codexs?

These questions are either clearly covered in the core rules or they are not well written enough for me to quite figure out what you're actually asking. Either way, I don't think any of these are good candidates for inclusion in the INAT.

cravex wrote:+RB.67A.02 – Q: If a transport vehicle is ‘wrecked’
while completely surrounded by enemy models in
base contact, can the passengers disembark outside
of the surrounding enemies as long as they are still
within 2” of the vehicle’s hull but not within 1” of any
enemy (which is mathematically possible)?
A: No. Disembarking is a form of (non-normal) movement
and therefore they may not move through impassable terrain
and/or any models when disembarking [clarification].

The rulebook simply states they can't disembark. The Question I have is, does this mean they are destroyed as the vehicle in wrecked? are are they just trapped in the vehicle until the surrounding unit moves away?

The 'wrecked' rules on page 67 are clear: models that cannot disembark are destroyed.

TopC wrote:For Tau regarding KPS from gun drones that came from vehicles.

no FAQ saying this, but letters from GW says they should be counted as equipment, not KPs.. :( faq just needs updated..ugh

Unfortunately, until GW actually takes the time to FAQ some information regarding some units being immune to Kill Points, any and all units give up a Kill Point unless their rules specify otherwise. The Tau Drone rules even state that they form a UNIT after disembarking!

Our rule of thumb always is: Can the unit contest an enemy-held objective in an objective mission? If the answer is yes, then it is only fair that the unit is also worth a Kill Point in Annihilation missions or else you're getting the best of both worlds without any penalty.


More to come...

willydstyle wrote:Do open-topped vehicles use the rules for fire points?

The rules for open-topped vehicles state that they do not have "specific fire points."

This could be read in two ways:

They don't have fire points at all, and thus don't follow the rules for fire points.

-or-

They use the rules for fire points, just don't have specific ones that you measure from.

If the first option is correct (which I don't think it is) then the passengers of open-topped vehicles may fire if the vehicle moves 12", or even 18-24" if the vehicle is fast.

I see what you're saying but I believe that the following sentence on page 70 does a pretty good job of clarifying what they mean:

"Instead, all passengers in an open-topped vehicle may fire, measuring range and line of sight from the hull of the vehicle."


So instead of being limited as to how many models can fire and from specific points on the vehicle, an open-topped vehicle allows passengers to fire from any point on the hull...but all other rules normally governing how embarked models fire would still be used (as these are the only ones that are used instead).

Now, I understand that there is enough ambiguity for you to ask the question, but I feel this definitely falls into the case of something that wouldn't actually come up enough in real life because the argument is so flimsy. Have you seen many or any examples of players attempting to argue this point at tournaments?

Burto89 wrote:Just wondering if burna's can be used as power weapons for boys that have been upgraded.... i.e. komandos with burnas?

This is standard practice in the newer codexes. Rules are listed on the pages of the units that use them the most, but then other units reference back to those rules. So yes, Kommandos with Burnas can use them as power weapons, but I don't think that's a frequent enough question to put into the FAQ.

Krimmsonscurge wrote:if I have a unit of guardsmen strung out in a line 2 inches apart could another unit of mine move through the gaps in the guardsmen unit? could an opponent move through the gaps?

if the squad that is in a line takes casualties and the figs are out of squad coherancy how does that affect the above situation?

Both of these situations are clearly covered by the core rules. You cannot move within 1" of an enemy model, but in some extreme examples it may be possible to move in between models in a unit (but its pretty rare to be able to do so without coming within 1" of any enemy). As such, I don't think this is a good candidate for inclusion in the FAQ.

Arschbombe wrote:I just noticed that the fire frenzy ruling from the earlier versions (2.2 and earlier) was changed. What was the reason for the reversal? I thought the old ruling was spot on.

We just got a lot of user feedback on that ruling, and since it is ambiguous enough to really be ruled either way (and its certainly not game-breaking to play it the way it is ruled now), we went ahead and switched it.

If anything, it probably makes a Chaos dread almost worth taking, which isn't a bad side-effect IMHO.

resinmann wrote:My question is about SW Bjorn the Fell-Handed. Is his Int of 3 a typo? Has there been errata addressing this OR is he just Lame. I know other SW players really like his ability to re-roll for sides of the table to deploy on. (LoL)
Bjorn is from the time of Russ. Is Bjorn just Old and Tired. There is a lot of Fluff/Sagas to make your SM into SW's. Why doesn't Bjorn have a Wolf Claw?

There's only so many 'do the rules printed really mean what they say they mean?' questions in the FAQ, especially since we're not GW and we don't know for sure if any of these things are intentional or a typo. So yeah, in this case we just have to assume that Bjorn is old so his Initiative is 3 and he doesn't have a Wolf Claw because he's a Dreadnought.

athelu wrote:SW - JotWW
Does Wargear modify your Initiative for this attribute test? The rules under attribute test in the Core Rulebook do not say. So - if you have a powerklaw, or a thunder hammer, and are targeted by JotWW do you test at your base profile initiative, or with your new initiative based on wargear?

First of all, the Sweeping Advance rules clearly state you use the unmodified Initiative value in the model's profile AND powerfists do not change the model's Initiative, they force them to STRIKE at a different Initiative value (a very different thing).

I think this rule is adequately covered in the base rules so we won't be including this in the FAQ.

I asked because there is a local player who made a really big fuss about being able to move his trukks 12" and fire burnas out of them.

His first argument was that burnas are "defensive weapons." When it was pointed out that passengers don't use the rules for vehicle's weapons (which took a whole lot of "convincing") he later came back with the argument that trukks don't use the rules for fire points, which, as far as I can tell, are the only rules which govern units firing out of vehicles, aside from that section of the open-topped vehicles rule.

Of course, that would also mean that he could actually fire out of the vehicle even if he moved flat out, but he didn't try to take it that far.

In my mind, the language "do not have specific fire points" implies that the vehicle still has fire points, just not ones that are defined as "this hatch" or "this firing slit".

Note to self:



*SM Drop Pods inertial guidance keeps the pods more than 1" away from enemy models? What if Pod drops directly onto enemy models, does Inertial Guidance help against this?
*Thunderhammers vs. Gargantuan Creatures & Super-Heavies (put in main INAT, in the Thunderhammer section).
*DE Haemonculi being able to take two of the same arcane wargear item.
*Do DE Hexrifle wounds allow FNP to be used?
*When are JotWW casualties resolved and can other 'wounds' be dumped on these models?
*Does JotWW affect Jump Infantry?
*Tyranid Tyrant Guard + Tyrant = 1 KP or 2? can this unit be set up in Dawn of War and if so, does it count as one unit or two?
*Combat Squads outflanking one roll or two?
*Lash Whip GW ruling have any influence on abilities that 'replace' characteristics (like Necron 'Soulless' vs. Stubborn, for example).
*DE Fearless from Power from Pain with some models in the unit that don't have PfP.
*Stompa Supa-Gatla vs. subsequent units that are out of range and/or LOS. Also, does the Flyer range reduction affect the within 12" rule for the Supa-Gatla?
*Poisoned Biomporph for Tyanids...does this stack with other special weapons?

Here are a couple of questions about things in the Appendix:


1) The Lord of Change, Aetaos'rau'keres, has a list of Daemonic Gifts that's as long as his arm. Among them is "Master of Sorcery", which is specifically different than the Master of Sorcery in Codex: Chaos Daemons, in that it allows him to use two extra gifts/turn.

Given that he is a Gargantuan Creature, and already allowed to fire every weapon at his disposal, what does this actually do? In Codex: Chaos Daemons, Master of Sorcery specifies that you're not allowed to use the same gift twice. So, he's explicitly given permission to use two extra gifts each turn, but can't re-use any of them, and his normal allotment is "fire all". What's up with that?


2) Is there a reason that the Sonic Dreadnought listed in IA:Apoc2 as an option for an Emperor's Children army is not in the list of allowed IA/Apoc units? Surely allowing a Chaos Dreadnought to carry a Doom Siren instead of a Heavy Flamer isn't that game breaking.


3) Zarakynel, sexy avatar of mine, has Warptime listed as one of her psychic powers. She's also a Gargantuan Creature. Does she draw any benefit from her own power in this case, or does her protection from psychic powers also apply to her own power? (RAW vs RAI)

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:Does the INAT FAQ plan on covering expansions such as Apocalypse or Planetstrike and if not, is there a similar source that does?

Well, we covered the Apocalypse *unit* rules in the INAT appendix, but there are no plans to try to FAQ the rest of the Apocalypse rules (formations, stratagems, etc), Planetstrike or Cities of Death.

There are a few reasons for this:


1) Apocalypse and Planetstrike rules tend not to be used in tournaments as they aren't the most finely balanced of rules, and the INAT is a tournament FAQ.


2) Apocalypse in particular allows you to take any combination of units from any codex together in your army. The sheer amount of crazy combination that can be created this way makes the idea of trying to FAQ all these potential issues seem ludicrous.


3) Both Apocalypse and Planetstrike are designed as more of a 'friendly' game experience in that players need to be willing to get together more and decide on what types of rules they want to allow and disallow. Because of this, there is much less need to have some sort of unofficial FAQ running around giving guidelines on how to play. In other words, you're not going to tend to play Planetstrike and Apocalypse games against a stranger in a more 'serious' point of view where you argue about rules (as there is too much to argue about). Instead, since you already have to come to a consensus on how you're going to choose to play these games with your opponent, it makes sense that you can also hammer out rules issues that crop up in the game itself without the need of an unofficial FAQ.


4) While Cities of Death could definitely be used in a tournament style game more than the other two probably could, the fact is, with the release of 5th editions building rules, there are already the tools in place within the basic framework of the rulebook to allow games to be played in heavy urban terrain without the additional Cityfight rules.



So while it might be nice to have a FAQ for these supplements, it is already a time consuming enough task just dealing with the codices and the IA/Apoc units...I don't think I have it in me to try to cover all the expansions as well...and since I don't know of any tournaments that use them, I'm not really sure what the point would be!

Of course, if you know of a tournament that does use these expansions, let me know.

Blackmoor wrote:I have a null rod question…

If it works on Veil of Tears, why does it not work on psychic powers like Guide?

It seems like it was ruled that it only stops powers that effect the model/unit with the Null Rod, but the fact that GW has said that it also works on psychic powers like Veil of Tears it seems like the scope of it’s anti-psychic powers is greater than that.

Jon can clarify more if necessary, but the principle behind the Null Rod and Veil of Tears is that Veil of Tears directly affects the unit/model by not allowing it to do an action. Fortune affects the squad making the saving throws, which is not the unit with the Null Rod. Therefore, since it does not have a direct effect on the unit with the null rod, the Null Rod can not be used to negate this power.

Skimmers, jetbikes, jump infantry etc may land on top of impassible terrain if they may placed there. What occurs if they land on a building that is unoccupied, but then later becomes occupied by enemy forces? Can they embark in the building since there would be an enemy within 1"? Can you land on a building that is occupied if they are not on the top?

The rules pertaining to these types of units and occupiable buildings have a lot of loop holes.

Can a Psychic Ability/Spell be used by a model that has not arrived on the board at the beginning of the turn as long as it does not effect a model that is on the board?

(Example: Farseer casting fortune on its unit(or itself) before it drops incase the transport were to die on the turn (or subsequent enemy turn) it arrives?)

Is it legal for Space Wolf Terminators to use Melta Bombs?

In the codex it says the following.....

"If terminator armour is not chosen, any model may have one of the following"

It then lists Jump pack and space marine bike.

Below that as a seperate entry it has

"ANY wolf guard model may choose any of the following"

it then lists melta bombs.

To me that reads that my Wolf Guard Terminators can indeed take melta bombs, is this correct

Some Appendix questions.

First off... what exactally constitutes as AA mounted (other then weapons that specifically state AA-Mount, for instance, Nose/Wing/Hull mounted weapons on a flyer, Hunter killer missiles, Apocalypitic Barrages) [Clarification]

Does AA mounted weaponry still have its ranged reduced by 12 inches when firing at a flyer? [Clarification]

Are flyers still only able to be "Glanced" or do they simply count as "Obscured" now as per their specific wording comparing them to skimmers moving flat out. [Rule change]

Can the Daemon Lord of Tzeentch actually reflect abilities that do not normally affect it (such as Mind War?) [Clarification]

UAA2.62.01 States the other Daemon Lords(Not Tzeentch obviously) require 1+ units of Daemons from their patron. Under the specific entry of Zarakynel, you state that it MUST contain a unit of Daemonettes, was this an error, or an intentional wording (for instance, one would assume they could simply take a Herald of Slaanesh, Keeper of Secrets, Unit of Seekers etc instead of being required to take the Daemonettes)? [Clarification/rules change]

Daemonic Assault/Drop Pod Assault/Deathwing assault (Etc) + careful planning:

Do units that gain the benefit of "X Assault" count towards the "up to one half" that come out first turn from Careful planning? Are they a treated as a seperate reserve pool (meaning, if you had 8 drop pods, 4 come out from DPA, 2 from CP, and the last two would come out turn 2)? Can models that are NOT chosen from "X Assault" still come in during turn 1 (especially when using Daemonic assault) with careful planning? [Clusterfrak]

Can the Daemon Lords that cast psychic spells suffer Perils of the Warp? Or is this considered a psychic power without a strength value? [Clarification]

The Tzeentch Daemon lord has the "Improved Daemonic Gift" Master of Sorcery (+2 gifts instead of +1) but he is also a Gargantuan Creature, which specifically states that he may fire all of his ranged weapons... which takes precidence? Also, does the Daemonic Flight (moving more then 12 inches for instance) and/or Gaze of terror (aka the Melee IK LD test) count as one of these gifts?

I have another one regarding GCs, but I will wait for these ones first.

Thanks!
-DAR

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:Some Appendix questions.

Are flyers still only able to be "Glanced" or do they simply count as "Obscured" now as per their specific wording comparing them to skimmers moving flat out. [Rule change]

Can the Daemon Lord of Tzeentch actually reflect abilities that do not normally affect it (such as Mind War?) [Clarification]

UAA2.62.01 States the other Daemon Lords(Not Tzeentch obviously) require 1+ units of Daemons from their patron. Under the specific entry of Zarakynel, you state that it MUST contain a unit of Daemonettes, was this an error, or an intentional wording (for instance, one would assume they could simply take a Herald of Slaanesh, Keeper of Secrets, Unit of Seekers etc instead of being required to take the Daemonettes)? [Clarification/rules change]


Can the Daemon Lords that cast psychic spells suffer Perils of the Warp? Or is this considered a psychic power without a strength value? [Clarification]

These questions will be removed as they are easily answered by more reading, I apologise for not appropriately researching my questions before asking...

However, some new ones have risen.



Dark Jealousy
If a Daemon Prince/Greater Daemon is inside of a superheavy transport and within 18" of the Daemon lord of Tzeentch, does the Dark Jealousy rule take effect.

Does it also take effect if he is in range of a DP/GD in a superheavy flyer transport?

Does dark Jealousy require Line of Sight to take effect?

Gargantuan Creatures
Do Tyranid Special rules (while not being techinically psychic powers) effect GCs ("It's out to get me" etc.)


Super heavy flying transports.
Do models embarked in super-heavy flying transports have their own range for abilities and psychic powers reduced by 12 inches (Such as Fateweavers 6" reroll, Doom, and Gift of Chaos)?

And then the easiest...

Hold at all costs

Does this asset allow ANY non-vehicle unit to count as scoring (as per rules as written)? ((The hard part would be the conflict of this potential ruling with Death Company's special rule))

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:Much like Drunkspleen's response, I also have a question regaurding Dark Eldar rules (as it was in the old FAQ thread, I am a bit surprised it was removed in INAT and from this thread.)

According to the 5th edition Dark Eldar FAQ

Talos are considered Monsterous Creatures, NOT skimmers, and such follow the rules for Monsterous Creatures for True LOS, Attacking Vehicles (other then their +1 for each extra attack rule) etc. This is where my question lies, as they refused to address what I feel is the REAL issue with Talos' wording.

The only real reason one would assume a Talos gets the rules for a Skimmer as far as LOS, Requiring 6s to hit, etc is because that in the codex it specifically lists the Talos as a Skimmer for MOVEMENT purposes only. (i.e no difficult terrain, can fly over Impassible but requires Dangerous Terrain if leaveing, entering or starting on Difficult, Dangerous, or Impassible.) Now I know this has caused confusion as to weither or not Talos can move 12 inches, but that aside, my question is;

Does the 5th Edition FAQs statement that a Talos uses the Rules for a Monsterous Creature invalidate the Codex Entry stating that a Talos MOVES as a Skimmer?

I believe we've had this ruled on for several iterations of the INAT, under DE.12C.01. While we don't explicitly say that the model doesn't move 12" it is explained that it moves as a Monstrous Creature (which is 6") and then just gets the bonus for its 'Skimmer' special rule allowing it to ignore terrain while it moves.







Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gorkamorka wrote:As I've seen it brought up half a dozen times here, and had discussions about it with two ork players in my LGS...
Ork unit costs and sizes, specifically for stormboy and kommando characters.

The relevant kommando upgrades read:
One Kommando may be upgraded to Nob.... +X points
...
Instead of a Nob, one mob may be led by:
- Boss Snikrot ..... X points (notably lacking a '+', or specific mention of upgrading)

The stormboy entry similarly reads:
One Stormboy may be upgraded to Nob.... +X points
...
Instead of a Nob, one mob may be led by:
- Boss Zagstruk ..... X points

Similar language from the codex that may be useful:
Flash Gitz:
One Flash Gitz mob may be led by:
- Kaptin Badrukk....... +X points

Nobz:
One nob may be a painboy... +X points

Do the characters require the purchase of a kommando/stormboy or nob to upgrade from? Or are they a base cost purchase that is simply added to the squad for the listed cost?

I've also seen the unit size questioned. Do they count as the base units in relation to the units composition size (ex 5-20 stormboyz = 4+Zag or 5+Zag minimum)?

I believe all these questions have been covered in the INAT for a few iterations. Here are the relevant question numbers:

ORK.99C.01

ORK.101A.01

ORK.103A.01

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:I hate to be TFG who asks the smallest of questions that may be obvious involving the appendix for an expansion for w40k.... *phew*

BUT... What are the unit types associated with the Thousand Sons' Warcoven (Interms of Force Org)

We won't be ruling on this, or any other apocalypse formation because formations are not used in basic games of 40K. The INAT appendix only covers the units that can be used in standard games of 40k.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:
However, one thing that does require a question, if one considers the FAQ as RAW (which I think for the purposes of INAT, one would) does that mean that the Necrotic Missile is no longer 2+ to wound? The Errata stated the profile changes to 24" Str1 AP2 Heavy Large Blast. Nothing about "Poisoned: (2+)" or anything of the like((No asterix)).

Just curious if INAT was gonna be superstrict on this one.

I don't think this question warrants inclusion in the INAT because the 'poison' part of the weapon is located in the codex entry before the profile listed. So even though the profile has been altered by the GW errata, the rules text that makes it poisoned has not been changed.

Does Frazzled scatter? I've seen arguaments either way and both arguaments make sense.

yakface wrote:

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:Much like Drunkspleen's response, I also have a question regaurding Dark Eldar rules (as it was in the old FAQ thread, I am a bit surprised it was removed in INAT and from this thread.)

According to the 5th edition Dark Eldar FAQ

Talos are considered Monsterous Creatures, NOT skimmers, and such follow the rules for Monsterous Creatures for True LOS, Attacking Vehicles (other then their +1 for each extra attack rule) etc. This is where my question lies, as they refused to address what I feel is the REAL issue with Talos' wording.

The only real reason one would assume a Talos gets the rules for a Skimmer as far as LOS, Requiring 6s to hit, etc is because that in the codex it specifically lists the Talos as a Skimmer for MOVEMENT purposes only. (i.e no difficult terrain, can fly over Impassible but requires Dangerous Terrain if leaveing, entering or starting on Difficult, Dangerous, or Impassible.) Now I know this has caused confusion as to weither or not Talos can move 12 inches, but that aside, my question is;

Does the 5th Edition FAQs statement that a Talos uses the Rules for a Monsterous Creature invalidate the Codex Entry stating that a Talos MOVES as a Skimmer?

I believe we've had this ruled on for several iterations of the INAT, under DE.12C.01. While we don't explicitly say that the model doesn't move 12" it is explained that it moves as a Monstrous Creature (which is 6") and then just gets the bonus for its 'Skimmer' special rule allowing it to ignore terrain while it moves.

So then the answer would be "No"

The reason for the question was as follows:

If "Yes" I roll 3d6 and take the highest when moving through difficult terrain(As a MC), and take dangerous terrain as normal.

If "No" (which it seems you have ruled) then I can move freely (up to 6 inches of course) into Difficult/dangerous(/Impassible?) and must take a dangerous terrain test when moving from, moving through, and/or ending my move in difficult/dangerous(/Impassible?) terrain.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:

Can an Immobilised Walker rotate to fire its weapons (Like a Defiler for example)? As the RAW state that walkers rotate to face their shooting targets, and this rotate does NOT count as moving... And the Immoblised rule states that vehicles may not rotate in the movement phase. (The walker rotate occurs in the SHOOTING phase). Thanks for the clarification.

Actually, the immobilized rules simply says the vehicle may not turn in place, with no mention made of this restriction applying to a certain phase. As such, I think it is pretty clear that an immobile waker cannot turn in place.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:Might be a stupid question, but noticed there was nothing on it here... While the spawn itself is worth a kill point (for Boon of Mutation and Gift of chaos) is the model itself that is victim to this ability worth a killpoint? On that same light, do JOTW and Crucible of Malidiction reward killpoints (as neither actually "kill" the model but remove them from play)

Boon of Mutation and Gift of Chaos both specify that the model is removed as a casualty. Crucible of Malediction does say 'remove from play' but then later specifies that the psyker is "killed".

Jaws of the World Wolf is the only one that could perhaps be ambiguous, so I'll add that into the next version of the INAT.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:

RAW would not allow a player to take Multiple Death Company squads with Astorath the Grim as his special rule reads exactally as follows:
________

Redeemer of the Lost
In an army that includes
Astorath the Grim, the
0-1 Death Company limit
is removed.

________


The Death Company do not have a 0-1 limit, instead the exact wording is

DEATH COMPANY.......................................................60 Page 44
You can include onle one unit of Death Company in your army.

_________

Would it be safe to assume that it is to be errata or RAI to say that Astorath's special rule allows for "Up to 6" squads of Death Company?

I just don't see any real possibility of confusion here. A '0-1' limit is another way of saying that you can include only a single instance of that unit in the army. Unless there is some other valid interpretation that people could legitimately be confusing it with, this really doesn't need to be included in the FAQ.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:

So then the answer would be "No"

The reason for the question was as follows:

If "Yes" I roll 3d6 and take the highest when moving through difficult terrain(As a MC), and take dangerous terrain as normal.

If "No" (which it seems you have ruled) then I can move freely (up to 6 inches of course) into Difficult/dangerous(/Impassible?) and must take a dangerous terrain test when moving from, moving through, and/or ending my move in difficult/dangerous(/Impassible?) terrain.

Yes, our answer is that the Talos follows the rules for Monstrous Creature movement (6") as well as its own 'skimmer' special rule. That means it may move 6", ignoring difficult terrain as it does so, but if it ends its movement in terrain then it will suffer a wound on a D6 roll of 1.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:So, another Inat FAQ, another (IMO) disappointment.

For the record, allowing SoS to affect vehicles is not a "Clarification", it is a blatant rules change, as has been proven in about 8 or 9 threads since the BA codex came out.
As is allowing a Techmarine to repair a vehicle he is inside.

Can we have just a little consistency? If you are going to change those rules and hide it, why not allow DC Tycho to be an IC?

In any case, My views on the INATs policy of hiding Rules Changes in Clarifications is well known, so I'll leave it at that.

Gwar,

You continually seem to be confusing what are labels of [RAW], [clarification] and [rules change] actually mean in relation to the document. They are well defined in the afterword of the INAT FAQ, and all of our rulings are completely consistent within this guideline.

For example, you believe that Shield of Sanguinius by the 'RAW' doesn't give vehicles a cover save. I vehemently disagree. I believe that the RAW clearly dictate that Shield of Sanguinius does give vehicles a cover save.

So if you're writing your own FAQ (as you do), then you'd be correct to label your ruling as [RAW] if you believe that the rules dictate only that one clear answer. And likewise, if I was writing my own personal FAQ I'd put the opposite answer and label it as [RAW] if I believe the rules only dictate the one clear opposite answer.

However, in a FAQ where we have multiple people ruling on stuff, if anyone has the opinion one way and anyone else has the opinion the other way, then the ruling is a [clarification] because it represents that different players are going to have differing opinions about what the 'RAW' say in this particular instance.

So we are not 'hiding' rules changes behind the label of 'clarification', a 'clarification' is exactly what we say it is in the document.


And as for the Techmarine ruling, we (as do every tournament organizer and judge I've ever encountered), consider GW FAQs to be binding documents towards making tournament rulings. I know GW FAQs are 'house rules', but they are house rules that we are openly choosing to use. So as such, if GW makes a ruling on a subject, we try to always remain consistent with that ruling and apply it to other areas of the game that are related.

Since they ruled that way regarding Space Wolves Rune Priests, there isn't any reason that we're going to countermand the way they're ruling and create a needless inconsistency between Space Wolves and the rest of the Techmarines in the game.

And yes, this ruling is (properly) labeled as a 'clarification' because it is based on a FAQ precedent by GW, not by the 'RAW'. However it is *not* a rules change because the rules don't clearly specify whether or not models embarked on a vehicle count as being in 'base contact' with it, so there is absolutely enough wiggle room to make the ruling.


Finally, why would we change the rules for Death Company Tycho? There are other 'characters' in the codex that don't have the IC special rule and are effectively units of one, so why would we assume that DC Tycho isn't exactly the same? If you look at all the bonuses the model gets for choosing to be the 'Death Company' version (all for no additional points), I think it is pretty clear that the 'penalty' for taking this route is that you can no longer hide him in a unit.

Gwar! wrote:
Except the difference here is that I do not base my answers on what I "believe" the RaW is, I base them off what the RaW actually is.
If you read the RaW, you will see that SoS only grants a cover save to vehicles that can be used against wounds and that a vehicle can only take a cover save if it is obscured.

Therefore, allowing SoS to give vehicles a cover save IS a rules change, no matter how you try and spin it.

Frankly I don't know how to respond to that. So your interpretation of the rules is always 100% correct and anyone else who has an interpretation different than you is flat wrong?

I'm sorry, but I completely and utterly believe that the rules as written allow Shield of Sanguinius and Storm Caller to grant cover saves to vehicles, so I guess I'm just 'spinning' it and completely wrong as only your opinion can possibly be correct.

Perhaps you should lower the number of people then, since it seems none of you can come to a unanimous agreement on most of the issues presented.

That is the whole point! People have different interpretations of language and those differences manifest themselves in confusion when encountering others who have a different viewpoint. Labeling something 'RAW' or 'clarification' doesn't change the ruling, it simply let's you know that there is more than one possible interpretation of the rule out there and we've gone with one that you may not agree with, but other players out there already believe is correct.

What would removing council members from the FAQ accomplish? The goal is to make a FAQ for tournaments, not to simply stick to some supposed 'RAW' high-ground even if that means we're forcing the majority of players to play the opposite of how they naturally play.

The label of how the ruling is made is ultimately pointless. It is just a really brief descriptor to help people know why the ruling was made the way it was, because we don't really want to balloon the size of the document up to a crazy level by adding more detailed descriptions of the rulings on every single question.

Again, the RaW is very clear. By your logic, I can now assault a vehicle and attack the models embarked inside.

The fact of the matter is the GW FAQ answer is a rules change, not a clarification.

And in all fairness, it would gain the INAT a lot of Respect if it actually took a stand and became a self contained FAQ, using only the Errata from GW.

That precedent is not logically sound. Saying that an embarked model is in base contact with the vehicle they are embarked on is not necessarily the same thing as saying a model on the table that is physically in base contact with a vehicle also counts as being in base contact with all models embarked on the vehicle. That is a complete leap of logic that is not supported.

And what 'respect' would we gain by ignoring the GW FAQs? Every single tournament I've ever played in or heard about uses the GW FAQs. So besides yourself, who else would we be gaining the respect of by ignoring FAQs that everyone else follows?

Just like it's clear that SoS doesn't affect Vehicles, Techmarines cannot repair vehicles they are Inside, and that if you forget to declare your Wolf Claws they don't suddenly become normal power weapons. Again, a little consistency. If you are going to change the rules where it's clear what the RaW is, why not do it here? Why not allow Bjorn a Drop Pod?

All I am saying is that consistency is key.

Because some people (like myself) believe the rules for Shield of Sanguinius clearly allow for it to grant vehicles cover saves. Techmarines can repair vehicles they're embarked on because GW has ruled that an embarked model meets the requirements to do so in their FAQs.

And how would you suggest players play Wolf Claws if they don't declare which roll they're going to make? All we're essentially saying with that ruling is that if you forget to declare you don't get to utilize the re-roll that phase. Is there some clear way to play that situation I'm missing?

So to answer your final question, in none of those examples are we changing clear rules as written, because none of those situations are perfectly clear. The RAW for these situations may seem clear to you as a single person, but when applied to a larger societal group, you find that not every person has the same interpretation of the written word as yourself.

But with Death Company Tycho, we have 10 intelligent people on the council who all agreed that there is nothing in the rules to indicate that he is an Independent Character, so why would we change it?

Is Ahriman a Psyker?

Can you choose NOT to create a spawn with gift of chaos, even if you have a suitable model (effectively using the spell as removal) ?

Can a Thousand Sons Aspiring Sorcerer cast Gift of Chaos and/or Warptime twice per turn (as they are Psykers with the Mark of Tzeentch)?

Does Warptime allow you to Reroll to wound with secondary effects? (Such as Vehicle Explodes results on Passengers/Nearby victims)

Typhus: Herald of Nurgle: The final sentance states that "Typhus always successfully passes his Psychic tests when using these two powers (and so is also immune form the effects of Perils of the Warp)" yet Manreaper states "any model wounded but not killed by the Manreaper can be killed by Typhus with a succesful Psychic test, following all the rules for a normal force weapon." Force weapons allow for Perils of the warp, does this mean Typhus is immune to potential Perils of the Warp cause by Force Weapons, is he also safe from abilities that would normally automatically cause perils of the warp?

Gift of Chaos: Do the Spawn models created from this spell all count as seperate an individual units, or are they subject to the "Chaos Spawn" special descriptor (stating they must be divided into as few squads as possible)? ((I think this ones kinda easy TBH))

much <3!

Ok..Here is the scenario. A unit of Fearless troops are tank shocked and the tank ends its movement on the far side of the unit with its rear portion over 2 models.
The way the rules read is any models that are under the tank have to move and the models have to move so that it is 1 inch away by the shortest route maintaining coherency. The exact wording is

"If some models would end up underneath the vehicle when it reaches its FINAL position these models must be moved out of the way by the shortest distance leaving them at least 1" between them and the vehicle maintaining coherency" (pg68)

So I moved the 2 units under the vehicle out from under the vehicle back up its path since it was the closest way to get it out and maintain coherency. My opponent said I had to move all the models along the path to clear the full route of the tank but I disagree

the rules also state

"If the test is passed (morale) the unit will simply let the unit move through as if it was not there" Which I take to mean that I don't move models along the route and only have to if it stops on the unit.(pg 68)

He said at Stone river, during a game, they made him move his unit to clear the path of the vehicle but that isn't the way I read the rules since it says " the unit will simply let the unit move through as if it was not there". Thoughts...

John Boy wrote:He said at Stone river, during a game, they made him move his unit to clear the path of the vehicle but that isn't the way I read the rules since it says " the unit will simply let the unit move through as if it was not there". Thoughts...

According to what he said, they were trying to play by 4th edition tank shock rules. In 4th edition, units had to move out of the path. In marked contrast, in 5th edition, units simply let the vehicle move through as if they weren't there. My suggestion would be that next time, you should open up the rulebook to the two pages for Tank Shock and point out where the rule says that you don't move out of the path.

Tyranids:
This concerns the Mycetic spore (Codex specifies it is a Dedicated Transport) and whether it can be dropped empty, and include a Tyranid Prime or not.

I'd like to draw your attention to page 94 of BRB, under the reserves header, third paragraph down under preparing reserves :

"First he must specify to the opponent if any of his independent characters left in reserve are joining a unit, in which case they will be rolled for and will arrive together,"

and it gets better....

"Remember that a dedicated transport can only be deployed, and consequently can only be kept in reserve, either EMPTY or transporting the unit it was selected with (plus any independent characters)"

So I would say not only can a Prime join most units with the option of a Mycetic Spore DEDICATED TRANSPORT, but you can also drop your pods empty. Thats the rules on page 94, and they seem pretty clear that none have ever done anything wrong by deploying this way.

GW FAQ says otherwise and seems to contradict their own rules. Will you consider going against their FAQ?

does RB.42P.01 apply to characters choosing to fight with two special weapons also? the ruling *technically* mentions choosing a special weapon and a regular one but does that extend to choosing 2 special weapons out of a selection of 3 or more? specifically, i'm asking this in reference to YMDC favorite, Marneus Calgar, with his dual powerfists and power weapon. since his question frequently comes up, can you add on a pertinent blurb about the ruling (whichever side it falls on) to his section under the marine FAQ?

also, does Lysander's bolter drill special rule apply to weapons that have a different profile to the standard bolter/stormbolter/boltpistol/heavybolter but are referred to in their flavor text as such? for instance, marneus calgar's Guantlets of Ultramar and pedro cantor's Dorn's Arrow are both referred to in their description as bolters and stormbolter respectively but have a profile that is unrecognizable as such...

warboss wrote:does RB.42P.01 apply to characters choosing to fight with two special weapons also? the ruling *technically* mentions choosing a special weapon and a regular one but does that extend to choosing 2 special weapons out of a selection of 3 or more? specifically, i'm asking this in reference to YMDC favorite, Marneus Calgar, with his dual powerfists and power weapon. since his question frequently comes up, can you add on a pertinent blurb about the ruling (whichever side it falls on) to his section under the marine FAQ?

And Eldrad and the Eversor and all the others with 2 special weapons plus additional weapons.

Yak, new issue for you and the INAT council (I didn't see this in the current INAT nor in the GW FAQ, so). . .

Does Fortune cast on a unit go with the separate units when they detach? I'll give the points-of-view that I've gathered and the problems that arise:

You have Eldrad + Asurmen + Dire Avengers. Fortune is cast on the unit (since an attached IC and the unit is considered 1 unit in all instances except for assault resolution) at the beginning of the turn. Asurmen and the Avengers break off. Does Eldrad still have Fortune?

1.) Yes - the power is granting an effect. This effect of the power is what is important, not the power itself. The effect is the priviledge to re-roll failed armor saves. This power is cast at the beginning of the turn, when all of the models in play are the same unit. This power is cast on "the unit" and every model in "the unit" therefore has the ability to re-roll failed saves. When the unit is broken up, the ability is still active on all parties. The reason for this is because it was cast upon them at the beginning of the turn, when the unit was 1. It conferred the ability to re-roll saves and that ability is still active, until the following turn. The power has done its duty at the beginning of the turn, but the effect remains.

Forseen problems: None. When the power is cast, the unit is 1 unit. Every model in the unit has the ability to re-roll saves. The ability goes with each unit, not the spell, because the ability is the by-product of the spell being cast at the beginning of the turn on everyone in the "friendly unit". You don't cast Fortune on Eldrad and the Avengers just so happen to get it at the same time. You cast it on one unit. That unit is the Avenger + Asurmen + Eldrad unit. It is not 3 units, but 1.

2.) No - "the unit" is one of the three units and it only stays with that particular unit if they are detached. The power grants an effect on "the unit", but once a character leaves "the unit", it is no longer in effect on them. It is not like an effect that the unit had casted on it, rather more like a Remains In Play spell that is activating when the unit is called upon to take failed armor saves.

Forseen problems: I have Asurmen + Eldrad + the Dire Avengers. They split into 3 different units. Who takes Fortune? And why? What if the player wanted Fortune on Eldrad and not the Avengers when they split? Or Asurmen? Where does Fortune go and why? It doesn't tell you to choose a unit when they detach. It simply says that the unit may re-roll failed saves for the remainder of the turn. When all three are together, they are 1 unit, for all intents and purposes. When they split, they are no longer 1 unit, but 3. This is looked at as a Remain-In-Play spell, but there are no such thing in 40K. The spell is cast and the effect of the spell is carried out. The effect is what remains. If it was something like a Remains-in-Play spell (the spell itself always affecting the targeted "unit"), then it should be able to be nullified at any time, which it cannot be.

Thanks for your time.

Edit: On the same account, if it is ruled that Fortune is lost when a character leaves a unit, it means that Paroxysm for Nids should work the same way as well. If a unit is hit with Paroxysm and the character leaves a unit, it would fall off, just like Fortune in the opposite example. Or any other psychic power that affects "a unit".

What prompted the change in the Astropath rule? I remember the old FAQ that it wouldn't work because it did not specifically say that it worked in reserves, unlike the Eldar Autarch.

Daemonhunter :GW FAQ. Posted by Yackface.

I see the Stormbolter was moved to the 2 handed Weapons. Does this mean the "true grit" rule dos not apply. Is the NFW the only weapon used in assault combat. No 2nd weapon bonus.

Can a skimmer-tank "Tank Shock" onto any "Level" of a ruin it so desires?

Can it ignore things in its way to do so (Be they friendly models, enemy models, Impassible terrain, any terrain feature)?