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 (v4.1) of the Independent National Warhammer 40,000 Tournament FAQ (INAT FAQ).


This new update is essentially just a bit of housekeeping (since there hasn't been any new codex released since our last update), mainly to remove any redundant rulings in the INAT that were covered in GW's official Blood Angel and Tyranid FAQs (or to change our rulings to match theirs where the two conflicted).

Besides that, we've also added a few new rulings throughout the document as well. As always, any questions/rulings that have been altered from the previous version of the FAQ have been denoted as such with a 'plus sign' ( + ) before the question # and have their 'answer text' colored red to make it easy for you to spot what has been changed.

Also attached below is the INAT Appendix v1.0. This covers all the Imperial Armor/Apocalypse unit questions and has not been changed since it was originally released (hence why it is still v1.0). We will be doing an update for the Appendix at some point this year to cover Imperial Armor Volume 8 & 9 (as well as to add new questions and correct some rulings, etc, as usual)...I promise you this is coming, its just taking some time!


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:

inatfaq@dakkadakka.com


As you can see, the email address for INAT feedback has changed from adepticon@gmail.com to inatfaq@dakkadakka.com

This is because, very soon we will be launching a new page here on Dakka that will specifically be the official homepage of the INATFAQ, which will hopefully make it easier for everyone to find and keep track of the most current version of the document, so keep your eyes out for that in the next few days!


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

I was hoping that ALL anti-psychic stuff would stop affecting psykers who were hiding in transports - the best way to make GW fix that insane Shadow in the Warp ruling would be for psychic hoods to not work.

But thanks for the update anyway.

So, in light of the ruling about Eldrad (or Farseers) casting on themselves and it applying only to the initial unit, does that mean when a Hive Tyrant casts Paroxysm on an enemy unit, I can separate my IC from it and he will no longer be affected? Because it's the same wording and that's a great way to get around Paroxysm (or any negative-effect psychic power, for that matter).

Basically, if Eldrad casts Fortune on his own unit, then leaves, he no longer gets it.

So, if Paroxysm, Doom, Murderous Hurricane, Shackle Soul, etc., etc., etc. are cast on an enemy unit with an IC attached, and the IC leaves, he's no longer affected? It's the same mechanic at work. Seems a little backward, to me.

Edit: And on the same token, if the IC joins a unit that is being affected by Fortune, Guide, etc. are they now affected as well? Again, it's the same mechanic. If you're saying all that matters is that the intial unit is being affected and an IC is affected so long as they're with them, then they should be affected when they join, just as they are when they leave.

This ruling is a little baffling to me. It seems to create a world of problems.

puma713 wrote:So, in light of the ruling about Eldrad (or Farseers) casting on themselves and it applying only to the initial unit, does that mean when a Hive Tyrant casts Paroxysm on an enemy unit, I can separate my IC from it and he will no longer be affected? Because it's the same wording and that's a great way to get around Paroxysm (or any negative-effect psychic power, for that matter).

Basically, if Eldrad casts Fortune on his own unit, then leaves, he no longer gets it.

So, if Paroxysm, Doom, Murderous Hurricane, Shackle Soul, etc., etc., etc. are cast on an enemy unit with an IC attached, and the IC leaves, he's no longer affected? It's the same mechanic at work. Seems a little backward, to me.

Edit: And on the same token, if the IC joins a unit that is being affected by Fortune, Guide, etc. are they now affected as well? Again, it's the same mechanic. If you're saying all that matters is that the intial unit is being affected and an IC is affected so long as they're with them, then they should be affected when they join, just as they are when they leave.

This ruling is a little baffling to me. It seems to create a world of problems.

The thing is, either way you play this issue, you end up with funky issues. For example, if a Farseer starts the turn joined to a unit and casts Fortune on his unit (which includes himself) and you rule that Fortune continues to affect the Farseer even after he leaves the unit, then what happens if that Farseer immediately joins a different unit in the same phase? Does the new unit suddenly benefit from the Farseer's Fortune 'status' (meaning the ability then applies to them as well)? If not, why?

And if you somehow come to the conclusion that the ability would NOT be passed onto a new unit the IC joins, what happens if a unit with an IC attached has Doom cast onto it and the character then leaves the unit and joins another friendly unit? How would you resolve Doom against ONLY the joined IC when the unit is shot at (considering 'to wound' rolls are not made against specific models in the unit)?


We discussed this issue at length and nobody was entirely happy with either way to rule on it.

At the end of the day we decided that by the rules, these powers are cast on A UNIT and a character joins A UNIT...so when he joins that unit, he is becoming part of THAT unit until he leaves. So any power which affects a unit will affect that unit, which includes a joined IC. However once he leaves that unit he is no longer part of that unit and would not be subject to ANY rules that apply to that unit.

I think this is probably the closest way to stick with the RAW and since there doesn't seem to be a totally clean way to play, that seemed like the best alternative.


So yes, this ruling would apply to any and all special rules/abilities/wargear, etc, that affect 'a unit'. Once an IC leaves that unit, he is no longer benefited or affected by such things.


And if anyone needs a fluff justification of why this happens (when it often doesn't seem to make any sense), you can think of it exactly similar to why an IC that is Fearless loses this status when he joins a unit that doesn't have the rule. While the character would normally never run away from a fight, when with his unit he puts this courage aside to stick with his men. In this case, the character is affected by the ability because he is with the unit, but once he breaks away from the unit his superior training/physiology allow him to shrug off the negative effects of whatever was affecting the unit.

Just to rebut a few of the points, if I may:

yakface wrote:
The thing is, either way you play this issue, you end up with funky issues. For example, if a Farseer starts the turn joined to a unit and casts Fortune on his unit (which includes himself) and you rule that Fortune continues to affect the Farseer even after he leaves the unit, then what happens if that Farseer immediately joins a different unit in the same phase?

Quite simply, the Farseer and the Farseer only (who was a part of the affected unit when it was cast) may re-roll his saves. Saves are taken separately, so this should be a non-issue.

Yakface wrote: Does the new unit suddenly benefit from the Farseer's Fortune 'status' (meaning the ability then applies to them as well)? If not, why?

No, they were not a part of "the target unit" when the power was cast. It's all about when it was cast. This is why I outlined the problems in my original post in the FAQ thread. People are looking at Fortune, Paroxysm, etc. as a "Remains in Play" spell. When it isn't. It's a power that goes off when it is cast, then the affected unit (no matter how many are attached) are "the unit". Every member of "the unit" is hence affected for the rest of the turn, no matter where they go. It's not a power that just keeps working - each model was affected at the time it was cast and they are affected until the power says.

So, if a Fortuned unit joins a non-fortuned unit, just the IC would get to re-roll his saves, because the new unit was not a part of the original targeted unit, while the IC was. Same thing with Paroxysm. If the IC left and joined a unit unaffected by Paroxysm, then the IC would be reduced to WS/BS 1, but the unit would not.

Yakface wrote:And if you somehow come to the conclusion that the ability would NOT be passed onto a new unit the IC joins, what happens if a unit with an IC attached has Doom cast onto it and the character then leaves the unit and joins another friendly unit? How would you resolve Doom against ONLY the joined IC when the unit is shot at (considering 'to wound' rolls are not made against specific models in the unit)?

I'm not sure that this is a viable example. How is an IC leaving a unit that is Doomed and then getting shot at? An IC would have Doom cast on it at the beginning of the Eldar turn. Then it would get shot at in the Eldar shooting phase. Then it would be the opponent's turn (no Eldar shooting), then the IC would leave and join another unit. Then Doom would wear off before another shooting round. The only time this would be an issue is during close combat, but during close combat, wounds are struck against IC's and so Doom would apply. I don't see an issue here.

Yakface wrote:At the end of the day we decided that by the rules, these powers are cast on A UNIT and a character joins A UNIT...so when he joins that unit, he is becoming part of THAT unit until he leaves. So any power which affects a unit will affect that unit, which includes a joined IC. However once he leaves that unit he is no longer part of that unit and would not be subject to ANY rules that apply to that unit.

I think this is probably the closest way to stick with the RAW and since there doesn't seem to be a totally clean way to play, that seemed like the best alternative.

Respectfully, I disagree. Not only does it make powers like Guide and Fortune a little worse, but it gives IC's a "Get Out of Jail Free" card when it comes to powerful powers like Paroxysm, Shackle Soul, etc., etc. I think the "IC leaving units" mechanic was put in place for USRs without powers in mind. USRs are a fundamental building block of a unit, while powers simply affect a unit at once. The IC -is- the unit when he is attached to the unit at the time it is affected.

Also, something that wasn't addressed was the reverse affect. If an IC loses a power when he leaves a unit, then the reverse must happen if he joins a unit. If the IC is being affected by Fortune, Paroxysm, etc., then the unit he joins is now affected as well? That also seems a little backward. The unit he joined was not privy to the effects of the power, why are they when he joins?

If the power went with the ICs when they left the unit, what are the issues? The ones above don't seem like issues to me. However, if they don't carry the power with them when they leave, there are obvious, glaring issues. Again, in my opinion, the ruling creates more problems than it solves.

Is there an inat faq for 8th ed wf?

See above for my points, Yakface

yay, marneus gets his +1 attack for using two powerfists... at least at most major conventions and store leagues! common sense FTW!!

I just want to point out that there are, once again, multiple "clarifications" that are in fact complete rules changes and once again (in vain it seems) ask that the INAT council remedy the language used to prevent confusion.

+1 for what the heck on Farseer powers.

Personally I have always played it that if you are casting on a unit with an IC you declare if it is on the IC or the Unit. When they are attached they obviously both benefit from it, but when the IC breaks off it goes with whomever you cast it on. If you attach to a different unit yes they would get it at that point, but that solves the issue of two untis getting the both when the two split.

Not being able to fortune just the farseer when you want to break him from the group that turn, to take on a vehicle or other target solo, can cause a lot of heartache for Eldar players.

Dark Eldar, and it may be a mute point since we get a new codex on saturday

but..

DE.15D.01 – Q: Does the Stinger‟s Blast have to roll for scatter?
A: Yes it does (you can imagine the victim stumbling around before he explodes) [clarification].

Strictly RAW there is nothing that would support that way of reading the rule.

It is not a blast weapon, so is not subject to the scatter rules for blast weapon. The blast comes from the model dying. If ther is an argument then let the person reciving chhose what model it originates from.

TYR.45E.03 – Q: Do „Assault Grenades‟ prevent models that are assaulting a Venomthrope (or a friendly Tyranid unit within 6” of a Venomthrope) from having their Initiative reduced to 1?
A: Yes they do [clarification].

Thats Nice I did nto know assauly gernades blocked Lash Whips. . . I will remember to never to take them again *rolls eyes*

Lysenis wrote:TYR.45E.03 – Q: Do „Assault Grenades‟ prevent models that are assaulting a Venomthrope (or a friendly Tyranid unit within 6” of a Venomthrope) from having their Initiative reduced to 1?
A: Yes they do [clarification].

Thats Nice I did nto know assauly gernades blocked Lash Whips. . . I will remember to never to take them again *rolls eyes*

What do lash whips have to do with the Carnifexes you're assaulting that are standing 6" away from the Venomthropes? It was a question about having to take a dangerous terrain test for assaulting a venomthrope or a unit near a venomthrope. Assault grenades would prevent the disadvantage. It had nothing to do with lash whips.

puma713 wrote:

Lysenis wrote:TYR.45E.03 – Q: Do „Assault Grenades‟ prevent models that are assaulting a Venomthrope (or a friendly Tyranid unit within 6” of a Venomthrope) from having their Initiative reduced to 1?
A: Yes they do [clarification].

Thats Nice I did nto know assauly gernades blocked Lash Whips. . . I will remember to never to take them again *rolls eyes*

What do lash whips have to do with the Carnifexes you're assaulting that are standing 6" away from the Venomthropes? It was a question about having to take a dangerous terrain test for assaulting a venomthrope or a unit near a venomthrope. Assault grenades would prevent the disadvantage. It had nothing to do with lash whips.

As the highlighted parts shows I am looking at the venomthrope part. Trust me I have already had this argument with some people that i work with and play 40k as well. I have explained to 3 times over that it is just for the miasma. I still detest these rulings but as such that the only way for me to get a game is to follow these "Fan rules" so I am simply sol.

I disagree with this ruling. How does assault gernades help you run through a fog of poisonus gas at some hazy object? What you toss the gernade hold your breath and run praying that you dont trip on something you likely will barely even see if you see it at all? Think that the people that just charged would not be able to jude distances that well due to fog density and as such may come up a bit surprised to get to the enemy sooner or maybe later then they thought. Is that not why you are suppose to drive slower in foggy areas??? Just seems to make sense to me you know.

Lysenis wrote:

puma713 wrote:

Lysenis wrote:*snip*

As the highlighted parts shows I am looking at the venomthrope part. Trust me I have already had this argument with some people that i work with and play 40k as well. I have explained to 3 times over that it is just for the miasma. I still detest these rulings but as such that the only way for me to get a game is to follow these "Fan rules" so I am simply sol.

I disagree with this ruling. How does assault gernades help you run through a fog of poisonus gas at some hazy object? What you toss the gernade hold your breath and run praying that you dont trip on something you likely will barely even see if you see it at all? Think that the people that just charged would not be able to jude distances that well due to fog density and as such may come up a bit surprised to get to the enemy sooner or maybe later then they thought. Is that not why you are suppose to drive slower in foggy areas??? Just seems to make sense to me you know.

You're using fluff to back up a rules standpoint which is a no-no. Just as easily as you can make all these assumptions, what about 1 of my models clipping the edge of a forest (therefore having to take a difficult terrain test), so therefore, all of my other models that weren't near the forest strike at Initiative 1. Does that make much sense? Nope. But that is how the game is played. Many of the rules are based on balance - ie., not being able to shoot from a vehicle moving at cruising speed, but you can disembark and shoot if it moved from cruising speed. It doesn't make much sense sometimes, but that is the way the game is played. Nothing can be said about you liking it or not. A difficult terrain test makes you assault at I1. Assault grenades negate any initiative penalties for assaulting through cover.

And, to speak to your fluff explanation - I think the idea is the reason the defenders will strike at initiative and the attackers strike at I1 is because the defenders are bunkered down or hiding in underbrush. The assaulters are creeping in or walking in with their faces covered underneath their arms. When they get into arm's length, the defenders lash out and attack, then the attackers get their swings back. However, when attackers rush in to difficult ground and toss grenades beforehand, the defenders must take cover. They must hunker down in their foxholes or take cover as the grenades blast all around them. Once they gather their wits and raise their weapons, the attackers are already upon them.

Regarding the Deathstrike Missile Launcher.....the INATFAQ says that a techpriest can repair the -1 to the roll to check to see if the Deathstrike can fire.

However, the Techpriest Enginseer's 'Blessings of the Omnissiah' special rule state that any weapon repaired by the Techpriest using that rule may be fired in the following shooting phase. To me, this wording implies that even if the -1 modifier is removed by the Techpriest, the Deathstrike would not be able to fire anyway, making such a repair moot and pointless.