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,

Now that we have the official new homepage of the INAT FAQ up and running here on Dakka, you can jump there to download the latest version (v5.1.1) of the Independent National Warhammer 40,000 Tournament FAQ (INAT FAQ):

Click here to visit the INAT FAQ HOME PAGE (and you can always find that page from the 'INAT FAQ' link at the top of any page on Dakka).


Just in time for Adepticon, we've put out a very minor update to the INAT: v5.1.1.

So what's changed since v5.1? Not much. Basically:

• One addition (GK.21A.04) - Grey Knights vs. Psyk-out Grenades added on page 50.
• Also, one incorrect question/ruling regarding Grey Knight Brotherhood Champion removed from page 51 (GK.26E.01).


And if you're unaware of what was new in v5.1, that update covered the Necron & Sisters of Battle (White Dwarf) Codexes and the recent GW official FAQ update (Feb 2012).

The INAT Appendix v3.0 update covers Imperial Armor Apocalypse 2nd edition, Imperial Armor Volume 11 & the recent Imperial Armor PDF updates available from Forgeworld's website.


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

inatfaq@dakkadakka.com


You can now follow us on twitter to be instantly notified as soon as a new INAT update comes out. Follow us on twitter: @INATFAQ


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

I PM'd this to you but further reading said that comments should be posted here. So here it is in the correct place.

◊RB.75B.01 – Q: If „Feel No Pain‟ successfully negates a wound, does it still count as an „unsaved wound‟ (for special rules that are triggered by unsaved wounds)?
A: No, it does not (although remember that „Feel No Pain‟ cannot be used against wounds that inflict „Instant Death‟) [clarification].


As it takes an unsaved wound for FNP to even begin it's effect Quote from the rule book "If a model with this ability suffers an unsaved wound, roll a dice." (the rule is to long to quote in it's entirety so the relevant sentence was quoted)

Your ruling also disagrees with the Hex Rifles ability Quote from Codex "A model that suffers an unsaved wound from a hexrifle must take a characteristic test based on their wounds value (i.e. the one on their profile, not their current wounds). If they fail the test, they are removed from play, with no saves of any kind."

Your ruling would ignore the Instant kill ability of the Hexrifle and the Flesh Gauntlet, even though you state that it can't be used against wounds that inflict instant death.

As both abilities require a wound to be unsaved just for their use, both should take effect. (i.e. If you pass your FNP and your wounds check nothing happens if you pass FNP but fail the wounds check you are removed as a casualty).

I suppose we could always roll off for whose ability works.

megatrons2nd wrote:I PM'd this to you but further reading said that comments should be posted here. So here it is in the correct place.

◊RB.75B.01 – Q: If „Feel No Pain‟ successfully negates a wound, does it still count as an „unsaved wound‟ (for special rules that are triggered by unsaved wounds)?
A: No, it does not (although remember that „Feel No Pain‟ cannot be used against wounds that inflict „Instant Death‟) [clarification].


As it takes an unsaved wound for FNP to even begin it's effect Quote from the rule book "If a model with this ability suffers an unsaved wound, roll a dice." (the rule is to long to quote in it's entirety so the relevant sentence was quoted)

Your ruling also disagrees with the Hex Rifles ability Quote from Codex "A model that suffers an unsaved wound from a hexrifle must take a characteristic test based on their wounds value (i.e. the one on their profile, not their current wounds). If they fail the test, they are removed from play, with no saves of any kind."

Your ruling would ignore the Instant kill ability of the Hexrifle and the Flesh Gauntlet, even though you state that it can't be used against wounds that inflict instant death.

As both abilities require a wound to be unsaved just for their use, both should take effect. (i.e. If you pass your FNP and your wounds check nothing happens if you pass FNP but fail the wounds check you are removed as a casualty).

I suppose we could always roll off for whose ability works.

Thanks for the feedback!

We fully understand that an unsaved wound is what triggers the Feel No Pain rule to work. The question is that if the Feel No Pain roll is successful, does an unsaved wound still count as having been inflicted or is the unsaved wound now ignored for all game purposes?

Our ruling is that yes, a successful Feel No Pain roll does indeed ignore the unsaved wound completely.


Feel No Pain could not be used against an unsaved Flesh Gauntlet wound because Flesh Gauntlet wounds inflict instant death.

As for whether or not Feel No Pain could be used against an unsaved wound from a Hexrifle, the answer is debatable because their unsaved wounds only have the potential to inflict instant death (if the characteristic test is failed). I think my gut reaction is that NO, Feel No Pain could not be used against unsaved wounds from a Hexrifle (because the wound has the potential to inflict instant death), but its definitely a question that needs to get included in the next iteration of the INAT.


Thanks again.

yakface wrote:
We fully understand that an unsaved wound is what triggers the Feel No Pain rule to work. The question is that if the Feel No Pain roll is successful, does an unsaved wound still count as having been inflicted or is the unsaved wound now ignored for all game purposes?

Our ruling is that yes, a successful Feel No Pain roll does indeed ignore the unsaved wound completely.


Feel No Pain could not be used against an unsaved Flesh Gauntlet wound because Flesh Gauntlet wounds inflict instant death.

As for whether or not Feel No Pain could be used against an unsaved wound from a Hexrifle, the answer is debatable because their unsaved wounds only have the potential to inflict instant death (if the characteristic test is failed). I think my gut reaction is that NO, Feel No Pain could not be used against unsaved wounds from a Hexrifle (because the wound has the potential to inflict instant death), but its definitely a question that needs to get included in the next iteration of the INAT.


Thanks again.

I reread the FNP entry. I see where our interpretations differ. I can also see FNP working against weapons that have some effect other than instant death, like the Tau's pulse carbines pinning effect. I will concede that FNP ignores other effects from wounds. Thank you for your response.

Just posting to point out that v4.3 of the INAT FAQ AND v2.0 of the INAT appendix are both now available for download just in time for Adepticon (see the original post for more details).

For anyone keeping track, I just wanted to let you know that a slightly different version of the INAT v4.3 has been put up on the INAT FAQ homepage that corrected one very big mistake in the Tyranid section (regarding Tyrant Guard), so its now labeled: v4.3.1.

Besides that one change, the document is exactly the same as the one released yesterday.

Thanks!

should we take the allowing of combat squads from reserves to be some insider knowledge of bad wording on gw's part as opposed to clear intent in their latest controversial FAQ?

warboss wrote:should we take the allowing of combat squads from reserves to be some insider knowledge of bad wording on gw's part as opposed to clear intent in their latest controversial FAQ?

No insider knowledge. We're just taking their ruling at face value as an answer to a particular question as opposed to a broad sweeping rules change implemented in an off-hand FAQ comment.

Or to be more clear:

People often read FAQs as if they were passages in a rulebook, which is incorrect. FAQ rulings are answers to particular questions and therefore you have to read them within the context they're presented. A great example would be the Eldar FAQ answer that related to Warp Spider Jump Generators. The question was asking if Warp Spiders were able to use their Jump Generator only when in a position where they could assault or whether the Jump Generator could be used when no enemies are in range for an assault.

The answer given for that question is that Warp Spiders can jump in 'any' assault phase that they are not assaulting or fighting in an assault.


Now, many people want to take that 'answer' and pretend that it is a rule in the codex replacing the Warp Jump Generator text, which it doesn't. The codex is specific that a Jump Generator move is done *instead* of assaulting and therefore we know it can only be done in the Eldar Assault phase.

Should the FAQ answer have been written more clearly? Of course, but I can tell you from experience it can be really, really tough to write brief answers to questions without accidentally providing people with ammunition to misinterpret the answer IF people want to mistakenly treat FAQ answers like rules text.


So when it comes to the 'controversial' Space Marine FAQ ruling, we are reading it exactly as presented:

There is a specific situation asked for: Can you take a 10 man squad, combat squad it, put half in a drop pod and then have the other half deploy or arrive from reserves?'
And given that the RULES for combat squads say that units cannot be split until they are deployed, the answer with the RULE in mind makes total sense:

Units that are put into Reserve cannot be split into combat squads.

That is 'true' because the combat squad rules say the unit cannot be split until it is 'deployed'. So when a unit arrives from Reserves it can then be split into combat squads, but not while in Reserve.


This 'ruling' of ours therefore both follows the rules as printed in the book AND the answer given at face value in GW's FAQ.

The other thing to consider is that with this recent release of Space Marine FAQs, it is clear that GW made a big push to put the same questions/answers for every marine codex in each FAQ. This is a great idea in general (one we've been doing for a while), but in the case of this particular ruling, you have to remember that it is an old one...it has been in the Dark Angels FAQ for a really long time and only now has been pushed into all the other marine codex FAQs.

The problem is, the Dark Angel codex actually *has* a rule stating that units put into reserve cannot combat squad...so that ruling in the DA codex was actually clearly the 'RAW' back in the day. But here's the great part: In the 'errata' section of the Dark Angels FAQ, they removed that exact same prohibition from the codex.

So if you believe that this FAQ ruling was indeed some 'master change' to the rules to not allow any units to be split when arriving from Reserves then you have to believe that GW went out of its way to REMOVE the rule from the DA codex explicitly prohibiting units arriving from Reserves from combat squadding and then went on to re-implement that rule via FAQ question/answer?

That just doesn't compute.


Because of those reasons we are very happy to continue with our existing ruling on Combat Squads arriving from Reserves (its actually just the same ruling we always used, I just colored it 'red' to make sure people knew we looked at GW's new FAQs and decided to stick with the same ruling instead of just forgetting to change it).

thanks for the thought out answer.

The rules change for FNP is listed as a clarification.

FNP only activates with a failed save, as do a couple other abilities.

Under the remove casualties section very first sentence, "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound."

FNP does not state that it ignores effects of an unsaved wound, just the injury.

You could call it a save, but under the models with more than one save it only allows you to choose one save of the available saves, so you shouldn't be able to make a FNP roll and an armor save.

I only know of one other diametrically opposed rule. Shadow in the warp and the Eldars runes of witnessing. These abilities both cancel each other out. Using that as a basis, all the abilities that are to be used after a model suffers an unsaved wound should either be used or both should be cancelled, not one over all others.

Just bumping the thread to let everyone know a new INAT FAQ update is now out (as of 6/30/2011).

This update covers the new Grey Knights codex, including taking GW's recent official Grey Knights FAQ release into consideration.

We've added two new members to the INAT ruling council Mike 'MVBrandt' Brandt & Ragnar 'Mannahnin' Arneson. Mike is the primary tournament organizer behind the NOVA Open and Ragnar is a very experienced tournament player with a great knowledge of the rules. Both additions will hopefully continue to improve the way that we make our rulings in the future (so feel free to welcome them)!

The v5.0 update also represents the fifth year the INAT FAQ has been in existence, and I'd like to personally thank everyone who has helped make the INAT a reality over the years!


Please click on the INAT FAQ link at the top of the page to download the new version and feel free to leave comments about it in this thread.


Thanks!


Oh and by the way, the INAT FAQ is now on twitter, so if you want to be notified when we put out a new update, twitter is the way to go. Follow us at: @INATFAQ

So does this mean that NOVA is going to use the INAT FAQ? I might be wrong but I thought they had their own spin on it.

Your ruling also disagrees with the Hex Rifles ability Quote from Codex "A model that suffers an unsaved wound from a hexrifle must take a characteristic test based on their wounds value (i.e. the one on their profile, not their current wounds). If they fail the test, they are removed from play, with no saves of any kind."

warboss wrote:So does this mean that NOVA is going to use the INAT FAQ? I might be wrong but I thought they had their own spin on it.

I don't believe so. Mike likes to have the entire FAQ in every player's hands, so he creates a condensed FAQ that contains only the most important rulings (in his opinion)...this is a different approach than the core INAT document, which attempts to cover as many situations as possible and is designed primarily for tournament judges/organizers to use to resolve disagreements.

As always, the goal of the INAT is to provide a tool for any tournament organizer to use as they see fit. Mike uses the INAT as a base of questions from which to create his own condensed FAQ that is more specific to his own needs. All of which is quite separate on whether or not he is a good candidate to help make rulings in the INAT (which he is).

zhujvnrou wrote:Your ruling also disagrees with the Hex Rifles ability Quote from Codex "A model that suffers an unsaved wound from a hexrifle must take a characteristic test based on their wounds value (i.e. the one on their profile, not their current wounds). If they fail the test, they are removed from play, with no saves of any kind."

If you're talking about our ruling regarding whether or not feel no pain can be used against Hex Rifle wounds, then I disagree with you. unsaved wounds from a hexrifle do not inflict instant death. They cause the model to take a characteristic test that if failed inflicts instant death...so the wound actually has to be inflicted before it has a chance to cause instant death. Therefore feel no pain can be used to stop the wound before it causes the characteristic test.

So the v5.0.1 version of the INAT FAQ has now been posted.

The v5.0.1 update is a house cleaning update that fixed a few small typos and rulings I incorrectly did not change before publishing the document. Specifically: GK.37C.05 (incorrect ruling), GK.37G.01 (typo), GK.37G.02 (typo) & GK.54F.01/GK.54J.01 (incorrect ruling).

You can find it (as always) from the INAT FAQ homepage by clicking on the INAT FAQ link at the top of the page or visiting inatfaq.com.

Sorry for any confusion!

In the Dark Eldar section, the Denizens of the Dark City are incorrectly referred to as 'Denziens'.

Sorry about the extended delay at getting a new INAT update out, but sometimes life comes along and kicks you in the butt.

But at long last the v5.1 update is finally here!

It covers the Necron & Sisters of Battle (White Dwarf) Codexes and the recent GW official FAQ update (Feb 2012).

Thanks for your patience and sorry again for taking so long to get this update out!

Oh, and the INAT Appendix update covering Imperial Armor Volume 11 and Imperial Armor Apocalypse 2nd edition, should hopefully be up within a couple of weeks.

APAKane wrote:In the Dark Eldar section, the Denizens of the Dark City are incorrectly referred to as 'Denziens'.

Ha, I totally missed this comment until now. This new update still has it screwed up but I just fixed for the next time after this for sure. Thanks for pointing that out!

This one is outright wrong. 'The Perfect Warrior' is an ability that gives the brotherhood champion the different stances and furthermore none of the stances given allow him automatic hits. They simply determine how many attacks he gets and where they are directed.

GK.26E.01 – Q: Does ‘The Perfect Warrior’ stance
allow a Brotherhood Champion to automatically hit a
vehicle he is assaulting, including when attacking
with a grenade?
A: Yes and yes [RAW].


The actual rule as written is as follows:
The Perfect Warrior: In the assault phase, after assault moves have been made but before any blows are struck, you must chose one of the following battle stances for the Brotherhood Champion to adopt:

Sword Storm: The Champion's blade whirls in a glittering arc, striking all nearby foes. The Brotherhood Champion makes a single ATTACK on every model in base contact with him (note that he does not recevie bonus attacks for charging).

Blade Shield: Holding his blade in a guard stance, the Champion prepares to parry his enemies' strikes. The Brotherhood Champion cannot ATTACK this turn, but re-rolls failed saving throws until the end of hte phase.

Rapier Strike: The Champion focuses his might into a flurry of blow that strike faster than the eye can see. The Champion makes D3 ATTACKS this turn (D3+1 if he charged). These ATTACKS are resolved at Initiative 10 and must be directed against a single independent character or monstrous creature in base contact.


In addition, the next FAQ again incorrectly lists 'The Perfect Warrior' as a battle stance. This time it is obvious it is meant to refer to the Sword Storm stance.

GK.26E.02 – Q: When exactly does a Brotherhood
Champion using ‘The Perfect Warrior’ stance check
to see how many enemy models are in base contact
with him?
A: Check at the Initiative step that the Brotherhood
Champion makes his attacks [clarification].

Please have someone re-read the Brotherhood Champion entry and fix these.

No answer on how the Hive Guard FAQ rule is going work regarding cover saves on vehicles since it references wounds? I only mention it since someone will bring it up.

I think the INATFAQ meant that it was still POSSIBLE to auto-hit a stationary vehicle, but the wording they use in the ruling is very misleading.

rb0014 wrote:This one is outright wrong. 'The Perfect Warrior' is an ability that gives the brotherhood champion the different stances and furthermore none of the stances given allow him automatic hits. They simply determine how many attacks he gets and where they are directed.

GK.26E.01 – Q: Does ‘The Perfect Warrior’ stance
allow a Brotherhood Champion to automatically hit a
vehicle he is assaulting, including when attacking
with a grenade?
A: Yes and yes [RAW].

Yeah, that's just a big giant mistake! Definitely caused by not reading closely enough and incorrectly thinking it was basically a copy-paste of Gabriel Seth's rule.

It sadly happens. But what's funny is that its been in there since the last update (August).

I'll get it removed immediately for the next release.

rb0014 wrote:In addition, the next FAQ again incorrectly lists 'The Perfect Warrior' as a battle stance. This time it is obvious it is meant to refer to the Sword Storm stance.

GK.26E.02 – Q: When exactly does a Brotherhood
Champion using ‘The Perfect Warrior’ stance check
to see how many enemy models are in base contact
with him?
A: Check at the Initiative step that the Brotherhood
Champion makes his attacks [clarification].

Please have someone re-read the Brotherhood Champion entry and fix these.

That's just a simple typo, it should be sword stance as you figured out (and will get fixed).


Thanks for the heads up, I really appreciate it!

Hulksmash wrote:No answer on how the Hive Guard FAQ rule is going work regarding cover saves on vehicles since it references wounds? I only mention it since someone will bring it up.

Yeah, we tend not to include questions that we don't think a tournament judge will ever really have an issue answering. While GW's FAQ only does specify wounds, given that there's no reason not to assume the same logic applies to hits against vehicles (especially as vehicles are actually even more restrictive about obtaining cover than non-vehicle models).

Just posting a notification that the INAT Appendix v3.0 has now been released.

It covers Imperial Armor Apocalypse 2nd edition, Imperial Armor Volume 11 & the recent Imperial Armor PDF updates available from Forgeworld's website.


Thanks everyone!

I think this one

"GK.53D.02 – Q: What happens when a Vindicare uses
‘Turbo-Penetrator’ against a vehicle that doesn’t
allow extra penetration dice (such as an Eldar Wave
Serpent or Necron Monolith)?
A: Penetration would be only S3+D6 against such targets
(and rending cannot not provide a further D3) [clarification]."

is wrong - except for the rending part.

In the original rule - Quote:
"Turbo-Penetrator: A turbo-penetrator shot inflicts 2
wounds on any non-vehicle model wounded, rather than 1.
A turbo-penetrator shot has an Armour Penetration of 4D6."

There is nothing said about "additional dice". The Turbo Penetrator has a set value of 4D6 whereas the rules for Meltaweaponry explicitly state the "additional D6" to be rolled.


Greetz

Hellgore

Hellgore wrote:I think this one

"GK.53D.02 – Q: What happens when a Vindicare uses
‘Turbo-Penetrator’ against a vehicle that doesn’t
allow extra penetration dice (such as an Eldar Wave
Serpent or Necron Monolith)?
A: Penetration would be only S3+D6 against such targets
(and rending cannot not provide a further D3) [clarification]."

is wrong - except for the rending part.

In the original rule - Quote:
"Turbo-Penetrator: A turbo-penetrator shot inflicts 2
wounds on any non-vehicle model wounded, rather than 1.
A turbo-penetrator shot has an Armour Penetration of 4D6."

There is nothing said about "additional dice". The Turbo Penetrator has a set value of 4D6 whereas the rules for Meltaweaponry explicitly state the "additional D6" to be rolled.


Greetz

Hellgore

I'm glad you brought that up because it made me realize I need to remove the reference to the Monolith out of that question!

But the answer still stands. The main rules specify what normal armor penetration is (Strength + D6). Any dice added to that mix are additional and would be ignored by a Wave Serpent or any other ability that restricts additional dice from being used for Armor Penetration.

Just in time for Adepticon, we've put out a very minor update to the INAT: v5.1.1.

So what's changed since v5.1? Not much. Basically:

• One addition (GK.21A.04) - Grey Knights vs. Psyk-out Grenades added on page 50.
• Also, one incorrect question/ruling regarding Grey Knight Brotherhood Champion removed from page 51 (GK.26E.01).

As always, you can download the latest version of the INAT at www.inatfaq.com

And yes, I have gotten all the recent great questions posted in this thread (and the one in the YMDC forum), but we didn't want to post too many new changes right before Adepticon, so we will get those questions included the next time we do a major update of the INAT.

Thanks everyone!

moved to the right place

< Taken by the void dragon. >

Gents,

I put your INAT forward at my club, and two issues arose straight away from a quick glance from one person, hence why its not getting taken on atm.

Q: Can enemy non-vehicle models
utilize a cover save against Vibro Cannon wounds?
A: As the weapon does not require line of sight, they may
only claim a cover save if at least half of their models are
actually in terrain and/or touching a piece of intervening
terrain [clarification].


Cover should be determined on a model by model basis, starting with the closest to the vibrocannon, and shouldn't be if the unit is 50% in cover or not.

ELD.45B.04 – Q: What happens if a vibro cannon
battery hits an enemy artillery unit?
A: The enemy artillery unit suffers D6 hits that are randomized
as normal. Any vibro cannon hit that strikes a gun model
destroys it [clarification].


Against artillery you always roll to wound against T7, and remove models that are closest to the firer like normal. It is never randomised.

INAT has not been updated since 5th edition, most of it's rulings and such are not relevant anymore.

It states in the start of the FAQ and in the first thread it's for 5th.