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 everyone,

Attached below is the latest version (v3.0) of the Independent National Warhammer 40,000 Tournament FAQ (INAT FAQ), produced primarily for Adepticon 2010.

We're going to try to put out a new version within a couple months of the release of any new codex, as that will tend to make the document more useful on a year-round basis for those who like to utilize it rather than having to wait for a new version released only once a year. We did have this updated version ready to go a few weeks ago, but we had to revise it when GW released the official IG FAQ (because many of the questions were essentially duplicates).

This version does not contain clarifications for the upcoming Space Wolf codex as it hasn't been officially released yet and again, the plan is to give each codex a month or two in order to uncover and collate any pertinent questions.

The biggest change to this version of the FAQ is the removal of the 'appendices', which covered the Apocalypse and Imperial Armor supplements. As those rules are used in very, very few tournaments besides Adepticon, we decided it was probably best to split the appendix off into a separate download which we will release a few months before Adepticon. This also helps to keep the overall page count a bit less, which is good, because there are quite a few more IG questions now included.

As always, any questions/rulings that have been altered from the 2.2 version have been denoted as such with a 'plus sign' ( + ) before the question # and have their 'answer text' colored red (just as with the 2.2 version) to make it easy for you to spot what has been changed.

We have altered/reversed a couple of rulings previously made in the 2.2 version of the FAQ based on user feedback, so please make sure you take the time to quickly scan over the whole thing to see what has changed.


Further feedback for future iterations of the FAQ is always welcome and can be done so in this thread or by sending an email to (for now):

adepticon09@gmail.com


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

Bit concerned about +IG.93A.01/IG.93B.01.

I fail to see how they can count as one of the mandatory HQ choice, if they don't actually use a slot. From the Codex: "[They] do not use up any Force Organization Chart selections".

Maine wrote:Bit concerned about +IG.93A.01/IG.93B.01.

I fail to see how they can count as one of the mandatory HQ choice, if they don't actually use a slot. From the Codex: "[They] do not use up any Force Organization Chart selections".

To give you a frame of reference behind the ruling, I'll point you to a thread from the You Make the Call forum where the topic was argued:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/239049.page


To make it short, GW has ruled in the Black Templar codex that the Emperor's Champion can indeed count as the army's mandatory HQ. And while something in the Black Templar FAQ doesn't necessarily apply anywhere else, in their ruling they also provided a reason as to why the ruling was made, and that ruling appears to support GW's position that units which don't take up a force organization slot can indeed still be considered a mandatory choice.

It absolutely is a ruling that can go either way, but the reasoning presented in the Emperor's Champion ruling is what pushed us over the edge in this case.

Sweet, thanks!

I have a request for the Tau Wargear Section. Can it be explained how Multi-Trackers work in situations not using Battlesuit Weapons Systems? Rules:

Tau Codex, p26, Battlesuit Wargear wrote:The multi-tracker is a sophisticated fire control system mounted in a sensor node, often upon a battlesuit's shoulder. It enables the model to fire two battlesuit weapon systems in the same turn

Tau Codex, p28, Infantry Wargear wrote:Hard-wired systems allow Tau without a battlesuit to benefit from some support systems normally only mounted on a battlesuit. See the Battlesuit section of the Armoury for each system's rules.

Obviously you can shoot two weapons from a Battlesuit using a Multi-Tracker. But what happens if:

1. A Battlesuit Shas'vre/el/o fills 2 hardpoints with a twin-linked weapon, and its last hardpoint with a single weapon. If the suit takes a HWMT, can it shoot both the twin-linked weapon along with the single weapon, even though this exceeds the "two Battlesuit Weapon Systems" limit?

2. A Broadside Team Leader takes a HWMT. Or, a regular Shas'ui Broadside takes a regular Multi-Tracker and buys the Twin-linked Plasma weapon. Can either Broadside fire its secondary weapon (either SMS or Twin-linked Plasma gun) in addition to its Railgun? Neither is a Battlesuit Weapon System (except for Plasma).

3. A Firewarrior Shas'ui or Stealthsuit Shas'ui Team Leader buys a HWMT and a Markerlight. Can the Multi-tracker be used to fire the Pulse Rifle/Burst Cannon in addition to the Markerlight? If they can't, why give them the option to buy it? Neither is a Battlesuit Weapon System.


Each of these situations are pretty ambiguous. Obviously RAW dictates only Battlesuit Weapon Systems, which Railguns, SMS, Pulse Rifles, Burst Cannons, and Markerlights are not (since they're not listed on p25 under the Battlesuit armory). However, why give Firewarrior and Stealthsuit Shas'ui's the chance to buy one if not to use it with Markerlights? Or Broadsides the chance to buy it if not to use it in conjunction with a Railgun? If we accept true RAW, this destroys the meaning of a Firewarrior or Stealthsuit from taking one, which they are obviously supposed to be able to do, as it lists the HWMT in the infantry armory.

Any help the INAT could lend to this issue would be appreciated!