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.

Hey don't get pissed at me for asking. This was an opportunity for you to set the record straight. I am sure a lot of people wonder.

G

@Yakface: Thanks for dropping in to the Tyranid Hive and responding so kindly to our discussion. Mea Culpas are always welcome, and I'll admit that I was a little harsh in my criticism.

If I'm to take your statements at face value (and there's no reason I shouldn't), your reasoning for why and how you're producing the FAQ is sound. It's even reasonable to assume that you're releasing the FAQ to the general public to prevent the crazy people who want to exploit loopholes.

However:
If you want your players to resolve things amicably without referring to the FAQ, then you should have that statement at the beginning of the FAQ in big, bold letters, i.e.: "This FAQ is primarily a guide for referee to resolve disputes between players. Players should strive to resolve all disputes reasonably and fairly to the best of their ability before calling a referee."

I also have a more fundamental issue with people who fall back on RAW as if it was heavenly law handed down from on high. I outline it a little more in another discussion here

I still believe the ruling on the Mawloc is flawed and you've missed the point of the mawloc in the first place. arguing that it must push units 1" away from it as otherwise it creates more questions about the Mawloc deepstrike assault is (IMO) silly. it ends up in base contact with those models, you're in assault. Select your target and attack. opposing units in base contact attack the mawloc. I think it actually simplifies the rules as it reduces the total table area it affects.

As I said before, it's your (in the grander sense) tournament. If you guys wanted to rule that all Marines had T3, all bolters gain rending, and each individual marine must be calculated at 5 points more, well, that's your prerogative.

Hey .. I don't get pissed Greenie ... I just get even ..

Your going to learn first hand with Bolter Beach .. the highs and lows of running a convention. My phone is always open for advice .. or just to vent.

Someone sent me a PM stating I was insinuating the council is paid off. That was not my intent. Hank I have run a couple of small GTs now and there is going to be some profit and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that at all. I asked out of curiosity. I did not mean to slag anyone and you of all people should know how highly I regard the entire Adepticon crew.

G

Janthkin wrote:

lixulana wrote:i think inat missed one, tervigons shooting a friendly unit with psychic power. can they also target a enemy unit with a different power/shooting? assault a differen unit? or maybe its answered somewhere else but i didnt see it. as this also is one that gw has never done before with shooting your own units.

The Tervigon has only psychic shooting attack (Onslaught). Per the existing rules, nothing gives the Tervigon an exemption from the "only shoot one target" rules, or the "assault what you shoot" rules. So, if you use Onslaught, you're not assaulting the enemy that turn. Seems pretty clear, without much need for additional clarification.

Does Eldar Doom, Guide, and Fortune work the same way?

Chapterhouse wrote:

Janthkin wrote:

lixulana wrote:i think inat missed one, tervigons shooting a friendly unit with psychic power. can they also target a enemy unit with a different power/shooting? assault a differen unit? or maybe its answered somewhere else but i didnt see it. as this also is one that gw has never done before with shooting your own units.

The Tervigon has only psychic shooting attack (Onslaught). Per the existing rules, nothing gives the Tervigon an exemption from the "only shoot one target" rules, or the "assault what you shoot" rules. So, if you use Onslaught, you're not assaulting the enemy that turn. Seems pretty clear, without much need for additional clarification.

Does Eldar Doom, Guide, and Fortune work the same way?

Nope; none of them are Psychic Shooting Attacks.

Redbeard wrote:
Which ones do I think are questionable:

If there is no area terrain, can a lurking unit move to other terrain to get a save? - yes

I agree that this one is a bit odd. I don't think it's a game-changer by any stretch though.

Can a tyrant leave a unit of guard - yes

Nothing supports this either. The rule says that the tyrant may join a unit. It says nothing about being allowed to leave it as an IC.

I think this is one of those grey areas where GW didn't make the rule clear enough. As a practical matter I don't see allowing a tyrant to leave its guard as conferring any significant advantage to the nid player.

Can a tyrant with guard get a cover save from hiding behind gaunts - yes

I think they got the ruling right here, but I can see the argument from the other side. RAI, Monstrous Creatures cannot claim cover saves unless they're 50% obscured. It's not cut&dried.

Another grey area and I can follow their logic. The tyrant falls into the gap in the rules because he's not an IC and other MCs that aren't IC don't get to join units.

Do assaulted spore mines get to have as many models in contact with them as possible before they explode? - yes

Again, nothing backs this up. One model from a unit moves into contact with the spore mine, and then the condition ("touches an enemy model") is met, and the "immediately explodes" should apply, immediately, not after you move all the other assaulting models. Order of moving assaulting models is clearly defined to be one at a time (every model must move to be in coherency with another model that has already moved), and so these are individual events. Moving into an assault is non-atomic, and so this explosion should interrupt the rest of the models moving.

I think their ruling is ok based on the rules we have, but I can also see the logic behind having the mine explode as soon as it makes contact. However, I don't agree that assault moves are individual events any more than any regular unit move is composed of several individual events. The assault move rules specify how you move the models in order to ensure the maximium number of models gets engaged, but it's still a unit move.

Can spore mines deep strike ontop of enemy models - yes
Can a Mawloc deep strike on top of an enemy model - yes

The rules for deep strike, on page 95 of the main rulebook state that you must "place one model from the unit anywhere on the table". My models are not the table. They don't say 'point to where you want to deep strike', or 'indicate where you want to land', they say 'place a model on the table'.

I think they're correct. There are mutliple threads on this so I won't elaborate here.

Can Spirit Leech hit units in vehicles - yes

Nothing in the rules has ever allowed this.

That doesn't mean that the rules will never allow it. It's never been addressed in this form and we've not had a unit with an ability like this before. I'm on the fence on this one, but I lean towards thinking that allowing passengers to be affected is what they intended. I don't agree that if it does affect passengers that they get cover saves. I think they made that call to lessen the sting.

Can Doom gain wounds from models dying when a vehicle explodes - yes

A model that dies when a vehicle explosion was not killed by a wound inflicted by the Doom, it was killed by a wound inflicted by an exploding vehicle. No reason for Doom to gain life off of this.

I agree with your take on this one. Until I read this version of the FAQ I hadn't noticed that the Doom gains wounds back from using its cataclysm power. I had assumed that only wounds generated by spirit leech were absorbed.

Do tyranid close-combat weapon effects stack - yes

I can see both sides of this argument. I think they got it right, but it's not cut&dried.

I can't see how anyone can read the rules for the weapons in the nid codex and conclude they don't stack. They're called weapons, but their rules work like wargear.

Do lash whips trump positive initiative modifiers - yes

Why?? If I can get +1i, why is that applied before, not after, the lash whip modification?

The wording of the lash whip rule says "regardless of their actual initiative value." That strikes me as rather absolute, just like with assaulting into cover. I think people get riled up about this one because they think it negates everything. It only works on models in base contact, not entire units.

Nope. But I think that the great disparity between those that favour the nid codex and those that don't shows some sort of unintended bias. I'll repeat again, so that there's no misunderstanding, that I don't believe this bias to be intentional on the part of the FAQ writers. I don't believe they're doing it for personal gain. But I do believe there is a bias in these rulings.

I see it they're trying to make sense of the mess of rules GW gave us.

Chapterhouse wrote:...
I was shooting Spore Mines and he used the same TFG argument. The codex says when you shot a spore mine that you can place the mine anywhere on the table and roll for scatter.
...

As a war-gaming business owner, I would think you should stay away from insulting people who don't take the same rule interpretation that you do. The argument that says you have to place your model on the table is no more a TFG argument than the argument that says that the designers meant it to work the other way. They're both simply different viewpoints.

Arschbombe wrote:
I see it they're trying to make sense of the mess of rules GW gave us.

I, personally, have no bias. In fact the first game of 40k I ever played was with a friend's borrowed 'nid army; I was thoroughly trounced by a pop-up tank eldar force but it was fun and got me interested in the game. I admit that one of my weak points is the whole RaI vs. RaW thing as I interpret federal regulations as part of my job, I tend to take things literally when they're spelled out.

I see your INAT FAQ and raise one GWAR FAQ.

Redbeard wrote:

Chapterhouse wrote:...
I was shooting Spore Mines and he used the same TFG argument. The codex says when you shot a spore mine that you can place the mine anywhere on the table and roll for scatter.
...

As a war-gaming business owner, I would think you should stay away from insulting people who don't take the same rule interpretation that you do. The argument that says you have to place your model on the table is no more a TFG argument than the argument that says that the designers meant it to work the other way. They're both simply different viewpoints.

Fortunately I am a gamer first, and yeah that rule interpretation was a blatant way to avoid being hit by a spore mine.

This goes into the same category that if you roll 3d6 and you roll 3 of the same number, its not considered a double.

What does the fact that I have a bits-business have to do with my opinion of TFG?

Chapterhouse wrote:

Janthkin wrote:

lixulana wrote:i think inat missed one, tervigons shooting a friendly unit with psychic power. can they also target a enemy unit with a different power/shooting? assault a differen unit? or maybe its answered somewhere else but i didnt see it. as this also is one that gw has never done before with shooting your own units.

The Tervigon has only psychic shooting attack (Onslaught). Per the existing rules, nothing gives the Tervigon an exemption from the "only shoot one target" rules, or the "assault what you shoot" rules. So, if you use Onslaught, you're not assaulting the enemy that turn. Seems pretty clear, without much need for additional clarification.

Does Eldar Doom, Guide, and Fortune work the same way?

but there isnt any rules for shooting your own units, and as i remember it is something that is explicitly disallowed by da rulez. eg flamer templates can not be placed so they touch friendly models. your not allowed to shoot your own guys. so what happens with a psychic shooting attack on your own guys. technically you cant do it at all. so the power cant even work in the first place.

Redbeard wrote:

Chapterhouse wrote:...
I was shooting Spore Mines and he used the same TFG argument. The codex says when you shot a spore mine that you can place the mine anywhere on the table and roll for scatter.
...

As a war-gaming business owner, I would think you should stay away from insulting people who don't take the same rule interpretation that you do. The argument that says you have to place your model on the table is no more a TFG argument than the argument that says that the designers meant it to work the other way. They're both simply different viewpoints.

QFT

Chapterhouse wrote:
Fortunately I am a gamer first, and yeah that rule interpretation was a blatant way to avoid being hit by a spore mine.

I wasn't there, I can't say. I believe that the rules say you have to place a model on the table. (They actually do say that, it's on page 95). Does that make me TFG? Or is it that in that one specific case, during a game, he questioned it?

What does the fact that I have a bits-business have to do with my opinion of TFG?

If you insult everyone who disagrees with your interpretation of a rule, that can't be good for business. If you call me TFG because of how I read a rule, why would I want to patronize your business?

To each thier own I guess, and this is the 3rd edition codex.

It still doesnt change the fact that he was interpreting the rules for his advantage rather then RAW.

This isnt business law or anything like that, so I dont know why people get all technical and dissect everythign to the point it stops being a game.

I agree with Redbeard here. Chapterhouse, I don't think those are good arguments. Not saying you're a bad person, but the reasoning is specious, and I try to avoid characterizing people negatively over their contrary intrpretation of a game rule.

Spore minds were broken that year following the tourney in-situ FAQ (pre INAT). I got sick and tired of people saying only Space Marine players were offended.

G

I need a clarification on a facet of the Mawloc issue;

A lot of people state that any unit embarked in a vehicle destroyed by Terror From The Deep, is also destroyed.

Is there a ruling concerning this. I can't seem to find a rule addressing this issue.

Can anybody help me out?

How do you want to play it? I am guessing you want the embarked unit to count as destroyed.

G

No, "want" is the wrong word.

It just seems to me that a lot of people assume that the unit inside is destroyed and I was looking for a rules reference.

The reference can be either to prove or disprove what I read. Either way is fine by me.

Steelmage99 wrote:No, "want" is the wrong word.

It just seems to me that a lot of people assume that the unit inside is destroyed and I was looking for a rules reference.

The reference can be either to prove or disprove what I read. Either way is fine by me.

Just my gut reaction 0,02€. 1) Vehicle with embarked unit gets destroyed by TftD, 2) unit takes damage from vehicle going boom as necessary, 3) disembarks and makes any relevant pinning tests, 4) push back from emerging Mawloc happens.

How does the Trickster work? Doesn't it destroy the unit inside as well? If so, that may be a precedent.

Thanks for the document.


Yakface I would like to submit a question for the next FAQ, and also see if I could get it answered here (if you happened to have already discussed this with the council)

Now that we have established what parts of the valkyrie are considered "hull" (a ruling a firmly agree with) it turns out the vehicle is a full 12" long.

My question is... If I am bringing a valkyrie or vendetta in from reserve or onto the table in dawn of war and I only want to move 'combat speed' for the purposes of firing, is that allowed? Can I balance the model such that the nose of the valkyrie is no further than 6" from the table edge and thus be treated as moving combat speed?

I can find plenty of passages in the rules about not being able to move off of the table, but am I compelled to completely move my model on the table if that is possible, even sacrificing shooting to do so?

I'd like to bring up the baneblade in this instance as it is more than 6" long, and is, in fact unable to move more than 6". In it's case it is a little easier to convince an opponent that the banebalde is allowed to teeter on a table edge.

My interpretation is that I am entitled to move combat speed, and thus, fire all the weapons that this movement speed allows, and that no model is ever compelled to move more than it wants to. However, I am sensitive to the conundrum that this ruling can create. Other models moving merely an inch onto the table, to gain almost total immunity to blast markers, and never moving forward after arrival.

edit to add: How I play at home is that I can move just the 6" and fire all of my lascannons, but I also endeavor to move the model completely on-table in the next turn, and I also honor every blast marker that manages to touch my model, even those whose holes have gone "off-table" This has seemed to provide a good compromise.

Shep wrote:Thanks for the document.


Yakface I would like to submit a question for the next FAQ, and also see if I could get it answered here (if you happened to have already discussed this with the council)

Now that we have established what parts of the valkyrie are considered "hull" (a ruling a firmly agree with) it turns out the vehicle is a full 12" long.

My question is... If I am bringing a valkyrie or vendetta in from reserve or onto the table in dawn of war and I only want to move 'combat speed' for the purposes of firing, is that allowed? Can I balance the model such that the nose of the valkyrie is no further than 6" from the table edge and thus be treated as moving combat speed?

I can find plenty of passages in the rules about not being able to move off of the table, but am I compelled to completely move my model on the table if that is possible, even sacrificing shooting to do so?

I'd like to bring up the baneblade in this instance as it is more than 6" long, and is, in fact unable to move more than 6". In it's case it is a little easier to convince an opponent that the banebalde is allowed to teeter on a table edge.

My interpretation is that I am entitled to move combat speed, and thus, fire all the weapons that this movement speed allows, and that no model is ever compelled to move more than it wants to. However, I am sensitive to the conundrum that this ruling can create. Other models moving merely an inch onto the table, to gain almost total immunity to blast markers, and never moving forward after arrival.

edit to add: How I play at home is that I can move just the 6" and fire all of my lascannons, but I also endeavor to move the model completely on-table in the next turn, and I also honor every blast marker that manages to touch my model, even those whose holes have gone "off-table" This has seemed to provide a good compromise.

Obviously not Yak but I remember this from the FAQ;

RB.94D.02 – Q: Some vehicles are so big they cannot move on from the table edge without moving faster than combat speed. Are such vehicles forced to move faster than combat speed on the turn they move onto the table?

A: No, if a vehicle is so large it cannot totally fit onto the table when moving onto the table at combat speed, players are allowed to leave the back end of the vehicle hanging off the edge of the table [clarification]. If players are concerned about their model falling off the table they can mark the spot where it is supposed to be and then temporarily move the model fully onto the table. Note: While a vehicle is partially „hanging off the table‟, any access points off the table may not be used and any blast with the center hole over the vehicle will hit it, even if the blast is technically off the table.

Steelmage99 wrote:I need a clarification on a facet of the Mawloc issue;

A lot of people state that any unit embarked in a vehicle destroyed by Terror From The Deep, is also destroyed.

Is there a ruling concerning this. I can't seem to find a rule addressing this issue.

Can anybody help me out?

We don't have a specific ruling on the books for this one, but when a vehicle is destroyed the passengers get to disembark, so there is no reason I can see that they wouldn't get to in this example.

The only thing that needs to be clarified (and will be in the next iteration of the FAQ) is whether the passengers count as disembarking from a destroyed 'wrecked' or destroyed 'explodes' result. I can pretty much safely guarantee that our ruling will be that they will count as disembarking as if from a 'wrecked' result (i.e. they have to take a pinning test but are otherwise unharmed).

Of course, if you don't have room to place the disembarking passengers then some or all of them may end up being destroyed as well.

AgeOfEgos wrote:How does the Trickster work? Doesn't it destroy the unit inside as well? If so, that may be a precedent.

I don't think it is a proper analogy in this case because Lucas's rule simply says that models in base contact with him are 'removed as casualties' which is why the question about vehicles being affected by this ability were sent to GW in the first place. Although they did rule that vehicles are affected and simply removed with all passengers onboard. But this ruling was almost certainly made with the context of the rule in mind (that the vehicle isn't actually destroyed but really locked in a stasis field).

Whereas in this case, the rules clearly state that the vehicle is 'destroyed' and therefore passengers should be able to disembark.

Shep wrote:Thanks for the document.


Yakface I would like to submit a question for the next FAQ, and also see if I could get it answered here (if you happened to have already discussed this with the council)

Now that we have established what parts of the valkyrie are considered "hull" (a ruling a firmly agree with) it turns out the vehicle is a full 12" long.

My question is... If I am bringing a valkyrie or vendetta in from reserve or onto the table in dawn of war and I only want to move 'combat speed' for the purposes of firing, is that allowed? Can I balance the model such that the nose of the valkyrie is no further than 6" from the table edge and thus be treated as moving combat speed?

I can find plenty of passages in the rules about not being able to move off of the table, but am I compelled to completely move my model on the table if that is possible, even sacrificing shooting to do so?

I'd like to bring up the baneblade in this instance as it is more than 6" long, and is, in fact unable to move more than 6". In it's case it is a little easier to convince an opponent that the banebalde is allowed to teeter on a table edge.

My interpretation is that I am entitled to move combat speed, and thus, fire all the weapons that this movement speed allows, and that no model is ever compelled to move more than it wants to. However, I am sensitive to the conundrum that this ruling can create. Other models moving merely an inch onto the table, to gain almost total immunity to blast markers, and never moving forward after arrival.

edit to add: How I play at home is that I can move just the 6" and fire all of my lascannons, but I also endeavor to move the model completely on-table in the next turn, and I also honor every blast marker that manages to touch my model, even those whose holes have gone "off-table" This has seemed to provide a good compromise.

Shep, we've had a ruling on this specific situation in the FAQ for a little while now...check the 'Reserves' section of the rulebook FAQ (page 19 - RB.94D.02) and tell me if this doesn't address what you're asking about?

I would like to apologize to council members for my previous comment. It wasn't meant how it might have come across and not until someone brought it to my attention elsewhere did i understand how others might have interpreted it.

Carry on.

G

Hey everybody, I edited this into the original post of this thread, but I figured I'd include it here for everyone who's already viewed the thread:


CORRECTIONS TO THE INAT FAQ v3.2

Thanks to community feedback it has come to light that a few unneeded or clearly wrong questions/rulings found their way into the latest version of the FAQ. I take full and complete responsibility for these mistakes, with the caveat that we were working with a highly accelerated timeline in order to get this INAT update out in time for players to digest its contents before Adepticon. Trying to get all the Tyranid questions and rulings written as well as all of the Imperial Armor and Apocalypse stuff at the same time lead to me having to spend quite a few nights working into the wee hours of the morning. Anytime a schedule is so rushed I think at least a few errors are unfortunately to be expected.

As we don't want to make players download a new version of the FAQ within too short a time period, we will be holding off re-issuing an INAT update likely until GW releases their official Tyranid FAQ (or their next codex, whichever comes first), when that happens we'll try to revise the INAT in order to remove rulings that are redundant with the official FAQ and reverse any of our rulings that contradict theirs.

Until that time, the following list of corrections will have to do:

TYR.48E.01 (Spore Mine Deep Striking over enemy models) -- This question and ruling will be removed in the next version of the INAT as Spore Mine Deep Striking now occurs before deployment of models. This ruling was improperly held over from the previous version of the FAQ.

TYR.59C.01 (Deathleaper reducing a unit's movement through Difficult Terrain) -- This question and ruling will be removed in the next version of the INAT as the rules clearly state that Deathleaper only reduces difficult terrain movement down to a minimum of 1D6. This was included when I accidentally didn't notice that clause existed and improperly assumed it worked the same as the Banehammer's special rule, which doesn't contain such a minimum clause.

AgeOfEgos wrote:Obviously not Yak but I remember this from the FAQ;

Ahh, thanks!

yakface wrote:Shep, we've had a ruling on this specific situation in the FAQ for a little while now...check the 'Reserves' section of the rulebook FAQ (page 19 - RB.94D.02) and tell me if this doesn't address what you're asking about?

Yep, that's exactly what I'm looking for. I checked the movement phase section, but didn't think to check the reserves section. A good spot for it, but it can happen to non-reserves as well in dawn of war missions.

Thanks for the reply!

Hi Yak, a question I have is whether or not "outflanking" is allowed in Apocalypse. Given that several codex units have this ability through "scout" or "infiltrate" USR.

wyomingfox wrote:Hi Yak, a question I have is whether or not "outflanking" is allowed in Apocalypse. Given that several codex units have this ability through "scout" or "infiltrate" USR.

If you're asking for a ruling on this matter via the INAT FAQ, we don't actually cover Apocalypse games (we cover the units for use in standard games of 40K but not vice versa).

My best suggestion regarding this would be to see how your opponents feel on the matter...Apocalypse doesn't use 'Reserves' as written in the rulebook, but rather 'strategic reserves' that are a slightly different concept. In addition, there are many stratagems and abilities that allow units to come on from any board edge, so you guys may decide that this takes the place of 'outflank' in Apocalypse or you could decide to try to allow it in your games for any units that could normally utilize it.


Anyway, my experience with Apocalypse games is unfortunately very limited, so I'm actually not the best person to give you rules advice when it comes to the Apoc rules.


Sorry!