http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/6.page JForum - http://www.jforum.net FAQ (INAT_FAQ). Barring any major errors we missed, this will the final version of the document for use at Adpeticon 2008. I would like to thank everyone who provided feedback on the document as it definitely helped us fill in some of the blanks and fix a few issues.

All new questions and revised rulings are noted by having their answer text [color=red]colored red[/color], as well as being denoted by a ( + ) symbol before their question number. Please note that In some cases the only change to a question and/or answer may have been to revise the text to make it more clear.

It is important to note that roughly 95% of the document is exactly the same as the 1.0 version. No [i]major[/i] changes were made to the overall purpose of this FAQ. Anyone who was thoroughly dissatisfied with the FAQ before is still going to be disappointed with the new version. Although we are open to any and all feedback regarding the FAQ, there is no need to re-submit the same complaints you had with the 1.0 version of the FAQ, as those issues have indeed been taken under advisement for the future.

For those who wish to improve the FAQ moving forward, please feel free to submit questions you think we missed and/or issues regarding consistency or clarity amongst our existing rulings. Although the FAQ will (almost assuredly) not be updated again before Adepticon 2008, the document will indeed be updated once Adepticon is completed for those who wish to continue to utilize it. Therefore, constructive feedback will most certainly help the FAQ to grow and improve for future use.

Many people have asked: [i]"Why did you call it the 'Independent National Warhammer 40,000 tournament FAQ' instead of just calling it the 'Adepticon FAQ', are you trying to force people to play the game [b]your[/b] way?"[/i]


First, the notion that we can somehow [i]"force"[/i] anyone outside of Adepticon to use this FAQ simply because it isn't called the "Adepticon FAQ" is ludicrous. This FAQ is clearly unofficial so the [i]only[/i] way it will see use outside of Adepticon is for a tournament organizer (TO) or gaming group to [b]choose[/b] to use it.

This, of course, will [b]only[/b] occur because they decide that it is a document of worth to them. If they don't find the document worthwhile, they won't use it. The implementation of the FAQ will therefore only ever be determined by the usefulness of the document, not because of what it is called.


Second, although rulings were made by the council as a whole, the document was written by me (yakface) as opposed to the Adepticon crew as with previous years. While I have most certainly become friends with the team that runs Adepticon, I am not what you would consider your typical 'Adepticon guy' because I don't live and play in the mid-west (I live in LA) and I'm not really involved with creating or executing Adepticon besides contributing to the FAQ.

Unlike previous years, this FAQ was not written specifically for the event (with only rulings that are pertinent to the tournaments they hold). Instead, I tried to write it with a fairly universal style so that, should a tournament organizer like the rulings found in the INAT_FAQ, they would be able to use it for their tournament without making any major changes. From experience, a pre-made tournament FAQ can be a very useful tool for a TO or gaming group who feels that they need such a resource for their tournament/gaming group but don't want to do the leg-work to collate the myriad of questions that need answering.

Did I name the FAQ in hopes that tournaments outside of Adepticon might use it? Of course, but not [i]because[/i] of the name. Rather the name is simply a signal saying the FAQ is written in such a way that if you [b]like what you read[/b] it can and will work great for your tournaments too (not just Adepticon).


In the end, if you like the FAQ, use it for your event. If you don't like it, don't use it! Also, please feel free to use the document as a basis for your own FAQ. Our FAQ was written with a very specific goal in mind: to help facilitate a smooth running tournament. Because of that, some of our rulings may not seem to make much sense to your particular gaming group and there really isn't any reason that you can't take the document and change it to fit your own particular needs.


[i]Edit:[/i] I almost forgot to mention that one of the best new features about the updated FAQ is the massive incorporation of hyperlinks. Now you can click on the table of contents and be taken directly to that section. Also, all the little 'reference' numbers after many of the rulings are now hyperlinked too, allowing you to jump straight to ther other related rulings and check out what they say.

It took a lot of time to insert all those hyperlinks, but I have to say the work was definitely worth the ease of use now!


]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/248709.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/248709.page GMT BTW - I love the hyperlinks. Streamlined and easy to use. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/248895.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/248895.page GMT
And I'm just a little too late in noticing something.

The question about Deffcoptas Turbo-boosting (which is in there) needs to be answered for Ravenwing bikes and attack bikes too. Or more generally for bikes/jetbikes with the Scout USR.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/248905.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/248905.page GMT FAQ set up, I get really uneasy when you actually rewrite the rule.. Other than that, nice job.. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/248934.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/248934.page GMT FAQ. The great majority of rules change items I encountered were things that could be argued either way by RAW, and the INAT_FAQ council chose the direction that is most played. That doesn't really constitute a rules change in my opinion, more like an [ambiguity resolution].

A rules change is something where you explicitly rewrite what is clearly stated. These occurrences exist, but are much rarer in the FAQ.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/248967.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/248967.page GMT FAQ. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/248985.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/248985.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/248990.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/248990.page GMT LOS? I thought you mentioned that you would add something to clean that up, unless I just missed it, which is entirely possible.



Thanks for the update.



Clay]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/248991.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/248991.page GMT RB.67.05 ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/249129.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/249129.page GMT
One question that does seem to be missing. What happens if while you are in the middile of making an assault move, you discover that one of your models has hit difficult terrain and there isn't a way to avoid it? Do you roll a difficult terrain test and just apply it to the remaining models, do you back up all your models and apply the test to everyone (possibly keeping the whole unit out of hand to hand or just slowing down most of them), or something else entirely. Its one that seems to come up often and there hasn't been a definitive answer (as far as I know).]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/249148.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/249148.page GMT
And I'm just a little too late in noticing something.

The question about Deffcoptas Turbo-boosting (which is in there) needs to be answered for Ravenwing bikes and attack bikes too. Or more generally for bikes/jetbikes with the Scout USR.[/quote]


The DA codex actually says that they can't turbo boost during the scout move.


[quote=Primarch]The rule about the truk being removed and replaced with an area of difficult ground was never really clarified. A crater? Cover? No cover? LOS? I thought you mentioned that you would add something to clean that up, unless I just missed it, which is entirely possible.



Thanks for the update.



Clay[/quote]


Yeah, as muwhe pointed out that clarification got added to the general rulebook questions rather than just to the Orks (since it really isn't specific to the Orks at all).


[quote=Phoenix]Haven't finished it completely yet, but it looks good so far.

One question that does seem to be missing. What happens if while you are in the middile of making an assault move, you discover that one of your models has hit difficult terrain and there isn't a way to avoid it? Do you roll a difficult terrain test and just apply it to the remaining models, do you back up all your models and apply the test to everyone (possibly keeping the whole unit out of hand to hand or just slowing down most of them), or something else entirely. Its one that seems to come up often and there hasn't been a definitive answer (as far as I know).[/quote]


That's answered by the GW online rulebook FAQ. Assault section, 2nd question.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/249161.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/249161.page GMT
I agree that some issues heavily debated by RAW (like can Space Wolf WGBL have heavy weapons) should maybe be labeled as "RAW decision", where things like putting the BT Champion in a drop pod are definitely "rules changes". ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/249165.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/249165.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/249255.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/249255.page GMT FAQ for DaBoyz tournament, I just took out the markers of what was rules changes because people didn't believe that the rules actually say what they do...

On to the FAQ - I really don't think an Avatar should be immune to an incinerator, as it's specifically an anti-daemon weapon.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/249349.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/249349.page GMT
Also, if the writers of the FAQ is actually gonna play the tourney the integrity is in jeopardy.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/249352.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/249352.page GMT
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/249373.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/249373.page GMT
Hahahaha....wow...[i]quality[/i]...

Skyth, very few people have any idea remotely resembling what the rules actually say. Including the Adepticon "council."]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/249375.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/249375.page GMT Str 8? Or no instant death at all because the weapon profile is Str X and the Instant death rulebox does not reference leadership?

Since the neural shredder description indicates that it uses leadership instead of toughness, and the to wound chart is used as normal (note that the to wound chart is specifically referenced, but instant death is not) - I would probably go with no instant death at all. But only allowing instant death on Weirdboyz who have been hit with Purgatus is probably just as good.

Is this really such a big deal that council has to go into "council" and you have to emphasize how displeased you are with the [i]quality[/i]? What impact does this ruling have on the FAQ in general besides to serve as a single example for an 'arbitraty ruling' that you get to shoot down? It may not be arbitrary, they may have put a lot of effort into that conclusion, but I am assuming that based on the extreme rarity (read Purgatus, Weirdboy) it probably received less attention than say LOS. Big deal.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/249428.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/249428.page GMT
I've never, ever, ever had anyone associate the neural shredder with instant death...

Arbitrary? Sure. Meaningless? Certainly not. The reasoning it must've taken to reach the shredder=ID conclusion serves as a fine example of the sort of decision making that the "council" is capable of.

I'm not against a FAQ, and Adepticon is without doubt a spectacular event. I wouldn't go so far as to base a decision not to attend solely on the FAQ. However, regardless of the [i]need[/i] for a FAQ, the content and rules choices made in this one leave a LOT to be desired. I admire the work that went in to it, but I renounce many of the decisions made. This isn't much better than a GW product because of the sheer arbitrariness of some of the rulings. The shredder is just one example.

At least it's correctly labeled as a "rules change." The reasoning behind it, though...makes me laugh hysterically. Perhaps some of the bias of the designers [i]did[/i] slip through? (not that THAT's ever happened before...)]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/249525.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/249525.page GMT
There is nothing wrong with this approach. The weapon is described both as Str 8 and Str X. Of course if you tried this on me and we didn't have an INAT_FAQ in effect, I could argue that instant death only happens when you 'fail your save' and since my model gets no save from the Neural shredder, it's not going to be subject to instant death (Hurrr! I read it on YMDC!). The point being, with the FAQ : no problem > without the FAQ : problems.

Denying instant death to the neural shredder is largely the "rules as played". Saying it works off the Ld of the target has exactly the same effect except one ridiculously rare case. It also apparently enrages you and makes you declare the FAQ writers incompetent.

How about instead of comparing it to the paragon of a document that you would produce in a perfect world, you compare it to what currently exists and what has existed before for 40k? This is way ahead of anything else we have access to, and I challenge you to disprove that.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/249544.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/249544.page GMT 40k rules, which despite being difficult to decipher still offer as much substantive game rules as this document does...in a more concise manner.

Suffice it to say that you aren't referencing the RAW or the INAT_FAQ in defending the council's ruling on neural shredders.

What's the point of making a rule explicitly for a ridiculously rare case AND violating the RAW at the same time? Not only is this >not< RAP (which the "council" purports to have used to resolve rules), it isn't even RAW.

Again, it's that whole consistency in revision thing... Go with RAW or plug up YMDC with "how do YOU play it..." polls, but don't arbitrarily use both, and don't circumvent your own guidelines, which was clearly done in this case and others.

None of this "enrages" me, but I'm certainly going to offer my criticism, harsh though it may be, in an attempt to produce a better product, or at least give the authors a better idea of why and where their player base might disagree. In some cases, vehemently. In my opinion, not addressing this ruling in the face of the criticism stated before the "decision was final," not only violates the process that the authors claim to have used to produce the document, it weakens any sliver of faith a reader of this FAQ might have in the objectivity and rationality of the authors.

If the RAW works (i.e. isn't game-breaking or unacceptably ridiculous, like their shredder ruling), unfamiliar though some players may be with it, why not use it? ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/249560.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/249560.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/249571.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/249571.page GMT [quote=ColonelEllios]

None of this "enrages" me, but I'm certainly going to offer my criticism, harsh though it may be, in an attempt to produce a better product, or at least give the authors a better idea of why and where their player base might disagree. In some cases, vehemently. In my opinion, not addressing this ruling in the face of the criticism stated before the "decision was final," not only violates the process that the authors claim to have used to produce the document, it weakens any sliver of faith a reader of this FAQ might have in the objectivity and rationality of the authors.

If the RAW works (i.e. isn't game-breaking or unacceptably ridiculous, like their shredder ruling), unfamiliar though some players may be with it, why not use it? [/quote]


This ruling is so amazingly insignifigant I am frankly baffled that you would make this your banner point for why you hate the FAQ. Look, the document is the best it can be given the time available to create it. I'll take full responsibility for that particular ruling, I meant to have a look at revising it with the council but with all the other changes and new questions brought up since the 1.0 release this particular one slipped through the cracks.

At the end of the day you have to realize that if you put out a FAQ I [i]guarantee[/i] that no matter what criteria you use to make your rulings, there will be a large amount of people that will disagree with you. It is just a fact.


]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/249583.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/249583.page GMT
The way I read it, there are at least three positions that could be supported:
1) Since the weapon is Strength X, it can never cause instant death.
2) Since Strength is compared to Leadership, it can only instant kill things with LD4.
3) Since the weapon inflicts a Strength 8 wound on models, it will cause instant death to any model T4 or less.

Based on my reading, the third option seems the strictest RAW, but all three are supported. My point is that decisions that seem odd but supported are viable. A body that chooses to make a ruling will undoubtedly upset somebody with the option picked.

One final thought: If this wasn't published in a FAQ, but was simply decided in the (admittedly rare case it happens) on scene by a judge, there is recourse to complain, because judge's decisions on scene are final. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/249609.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/249609.page GMT 40k GT FAQ gives the same ruling.

Q. Can the neural shredder instant kill models? If so models with T4 or Ld4?

A. Yes, it will Instant Kill models with a Toughness of 4 or less.


but that is a crazy crazy FAQ....]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/249630.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/249630.page GMT
I've never, ever, ever had anyone associate the neural shredder with instant death...[/quote]

You must have never played against our group in an event. We play that the Neural Shredder causes ID on toughness 4 or less models. So it's not hipocrisy on their part. It may be lack of exposure on yours.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/249637.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/249637.page GMT RAW.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/249701.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/249701.page GMT str 8 against leadership..." both fall comfortably out of the realm of influence of ID. This is obviously not a weapon that works in any remotely normal way. Assuming ID is an unreasonable stretch of the imagination, since the weapon doesn't have a normal listed strength. However, this isn't a topic for debating RAW, so that's all I'll say on that.

As far as Yak's points: I don't think there would have been such a level of controversy if consistency was made priority #1. As far as this being my "banner" critique, it is only in the sense that, in my perception, it betrays the sort of wacky logic that went into many of the council's final rulings. I think just about all of these rulings have been brought up by one person or another...

These are the things that will prevent this FAQ going regional (well, and 5th edition, so I guess that statement will never be proven...) At Adepticon? Fantastic. Do whatever you like. But I think you shot your greater objective in the foot early on, which is unfortunate.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/249789.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/249789.page GMT This FAQ is more consistent than any other FAQ ever produced (GW or fan-made) and I firmly stand by that claim. To say it isn't consistent is utterly ridiculous.

Again, you may think there is some easy 'RAW' ruling you can abide by, but again I [b]GUARANTEE[/b] that if you were to release your FAQ using whatever criteria you decide to use people would start screaming bloody hell that your FAQ is crap and not consistent and changes the rules too much, etc.

This is because players do not agree on what the RAW say or when a situation is unclear enough to warrant a rules change. It is a fact.


But your claim is false that this FAQ is not consistent. Unlike other FAQs which tend to be a series of questions answered separately (which leads to incosistent rulings) every ruling in this FAQ was double or triple checked against the other rulings in the FAQ to make sure that we were as consistent as we could be.


And this FAQ will never 'go national' simply because it isn't an official document. As I said above it will be used at the whim of individual TO's and gaming groups. You certainly cannot speak for anyone else's feelings about the FAQ besides yourself.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/249793.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/249793.page GMT GW doesn't want to produce the FAQ, I appreciate the efforts.
I don't see why there would be a problem because of thier failings, and even before trying it out at least people would have an issue.

Bottom line, RULES AS WRITTEN doesn't help you if the Rules are written like crap.

Thanks for the effort Yak. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/249865.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/249865.page GMT Again, you may think there is some easy 'RAW' ruling you can abide by, but again I [b]GUARANTEE[/b] that if you were to release your FAQ using whatever criteria you decide to use people would start screaming bloody hell that your FAQ is crap and not consistent and changes the rules too much, etc.

[/quote]

If you'll allow me to bastardize an old saying. "You can please some people all of the time, you can please all people some of the time, but you can't please all people all of the time." Personally, I think you did a great job with this. Kudos to you.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/249873.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/249873.page GMT
Its basically this situation: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/205093.page]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/249908.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/249908.page GMT faq, it is up to you to create a better one. Post it right here and see how many people agree with each and every one of your rulings, and see if you will be as patient and nice about all the naysaying as Yak has been. Otherwise at this point you should just shut it. Money where your mouth is time. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/249928.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/249928.page GMT GW's apparent lack of concern with anything other than the almighty dollar (pound?), has had me a bit worried, as of late. It's good to see something of this nature. I can't say I agree with all of it, but, overall, Great Job!!!
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/250067.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/250067.page GMT
Like I have.

I'll PM you my 2 cents, Ellios.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/250098.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/250098.page GMT str 8 against leadership..." both fall comfortably out of the realm of influence of ID. This is obviously not a weapon that works in any remotely normal way. Assuming ID is an unreasonable stretch of the imagination, since the weapon doesn't have a normal listed strength. However, this isn't a topic for debating RAW, so that's all I'll say on that.
[/quote]

I find it funny that the UKGTs FAQs have it doing even more than the Adepticon FAQ.

"Q. Can the neural shredder instant kill models? If so models with T4 or Ld4?
A. Yes, it will Instant Kill models with a Toughness of 4 or less."

[url]http://warhammerworld.typepad.com/warhammer_world_news/files/40k_gt_faq_3.9.pdf[/url]

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/250458.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/250458.page GMT [quote=thehod]I dont have much time to check but have you made a ruling covering models charging through cover that can use grenades but the enemy models themselves are not in cover?

Its basically this situation: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/205093.page[/quote]


This is covered by RB.39.01 and basically the answer is that if the attacking model moves at all through terrain then the defending model counts as being in cover (which then means the attacker can use grenades).


I know for a fact this goes against the way most people play, however we ended up going with the RAW in this particular case for a couple of reasons:


1) Whether or not a defending model is "in" terrain is easy to recognize, but when they are "behind" it is really difficult and subjective to define without coming up with a whole bunch of special rules. Obviously if a model is in base contact with a barrel and the enemy charges over that barrel it is easy to tell that they are "behind" cover, but what happens if the model is an inch away? 2 inches? 3 inches? Where do you draw the line?

2) In this case, the RAW does seem to state that if the defending model's direct charging line crosses over terrain the defender counts as defending cover. I know this leads to some pretty silly situations, but again once you start trying to draw a line in the sand it becomes pretty hard to make a ruling that is easy to understand (and believe me, I tried).

In the end, the fact that the RAW support this position and the fact that it looks as though 5th edition will be played this same way means that it was the right call to make at this time.


Also, it is important to remember that 90% of the time this is a benefit for the defender. It is only in the (fairly rare) cases where the attacker has grenades that the charging model can 'utilize' this tactic.


]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/250571.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/250571.page GMT str 8 against leadership..." both fall comfortably out of the realm of influence of ID. This is obviously not a weapon that works in any remotely normal way. Assuming ID is an unreasonable stretch of the imagination, since the weapon doesn't have a normal listed strength. However, this isn't a topic for debating RAW, so that's all I'll say on that.
[/quote]

I find it funny that the UKGTs FAQs have it doing even more than the Adepticon FAQ.

"Q. Can the neural shredder instant kill models? If so models with T4 or Ld4?
A. Yes, it will Instant Kill models with a Toughness of 4 or less."

[url]http://warhammerworld.typepad.com/warhammer_world_news/files/40k_gt_faq_3.9.pdf[/url]

[/quote]

At least that would be slightly more justified based on the RAW, but still waaaaay off base. "Counts as" isn't "S 8."]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/250889.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/250889.page GMT
Where do the rules say that the NS 'counts as' anything?

My =][= codexes both say simply that the NS is strength 8.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/250895.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/250895.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/251014.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/251014.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/251032.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/251032.page GMT
There have already been two long threads about v1 of the FAQ.

The majority like the FAQ. We know this from the straw poll a couple of weeks ago.

The minority have what they consider to be valid objections.

Since neither side is swayed by the opposing arguments, there is no point going through it all again.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/251039.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/251039.page GMT FAQ is, the answer to the are models in a transport considered off the board for Victory points purposes. While I agree that you opponent should not get victory points for your models in transports at the end of the game I do feel that while they are in transports they do not count as a scoring unit and thus cannot claim objectives of extra points at the end of the game.

Other than that I do like the FAQ and I believe that it is a step in the right direction. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/251057.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/251057.page GMT
1) The fact that the actual weapon profile for the NS has "S X" listed is in fact important. This weapon doesn't have a strength value listed in its profile, and should therefore immediately be disassociated with Instant Death, but I'm sure this won't be enough for you so I'll continue...

2) The NS's special rules state: ..."the NS is strength 8 [that's the only place Insaniak is correct] [b]but, rather than using the target's toughness value[/b] [I think it's obvious this means no I.D.] their leadership is used..."

3) "Other than this, the to-wound chart is used as normal." [translation: figure out how to roll against leadership using the chart that already exists for normal "to wound" rolls].

Since this weapon operates well outside of the realm of normality in this game, in which you normally just compare S vs. T, uses its own special rules NOT DEPENDENT on the target's toughness, and has no legitimate strength listed in its weapon profile (an equally important part of the rules for this weapon) I say it is wholly ridiculous for anyone to claim any sort of I.D. effect from a Neural Shredder, and I stand by that claim. 40k is rarely this black-and-white; don't try and hurt yourself by imagining shades of gray.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/251187.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/251187.page GMT
Indeed it is. And if you read the weapon's entry, you find that it's important purely because the weapon works differently to normal against vehicles.

The fact that the rules entry lists the weapon as having Strength 8 when rolling to wound means that the Strength 'X' listed in the profile is completely irrelevant for ID purposes.



[quote] This weapon doesn't have a strength value listed in its profile, and should therefore immediately be disassociated with Instant Death,[/quote]

Enough? It's not even a start.


[quote]2) The NS's special rules state: ..."the NS is strength 8 [that's the only place Insaniak is correct] [b]but, rather than using the target's toughness value[/b] [I think it's obvious this means no I.D.] their leadership is used..."[/quote]

Please point out the part in the Instant Death rule that explains that the Strength/Toughness comparison is ignored if the weapon wounds in some manner other than normal.


It doesn't matter whether or not the weapon uses the model's Toughness for the Wound roll, becuase the Instant Death rules don't care. The sole prerequisite of Instant Death is that the model was wounded by a weapon with a Strength at least twice the model's Toughness. The Instant Death rule doesn't care in the slightest whether that Strength or Toughness were actually used to cause the wound.

So yes, you're right that this rule is clear. Where you're wrong is in making up extra restrictions on Instant Death that don't actually exist.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/251240.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/251240.page GMT RAW. The fact is, you're adding qualifiers to the rules. The rules for instant death simply read "if a model takes a wound from something which has a Strength value of double their toughness or greater, it is killed outright." You are reading into that the requirment that the "something" (their word, not mine) has a tangible, listed Strength value of twice the toughness. Those who disagree are assuming that having a Strength value includes all instances where a strength value is used.

My point is not that you are incorrect in your opinion, but that you are incorrect in saying that the matter is black and white. The Neural shredder is a "something", in at least one instance it has Strength value, and there are no rules, none, for dealing with an attribute value of "X". You seem to be reading that to mean the weapon has no discernable strength, it merely has an effect on models. Others seem to be reading that as simply alerting the player that there is a wacky rule for the weapon, and that simply listing Strength 8 would result in confusion. Again, I'm not making the case for either argument, but there is a valid argument to this.

Ironically, this is exactly why judges and/or FAQs are vital for tournement play. You are completely convinced that you are correct, when obviously many other players disagree.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/251241.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/251241.page GMT
The Strength 8 is only for purposes of rolling to wound on the chart. There is no permission to use that strength value for anything other than rolling on the chart (Including instant death calculations).

If you think that any calculations from the strength 8 apply to other parts (IE instant death) then you still have to apply the 'use leadership for toughness'.

You can't have it both ways.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/251269.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/251269.page GMT ID purposes.
[/quote]

Really? That's very interesting, considering that the NS rules don't mention "strength 8 when rolling to wound," but rather state, "rather than using the target's toughness value." That's your answer right there. The rule tells you that the weapon doesn't affect toughness. You're not rolling to wound against toughness. There's no other reasonable way to interpret that.

You're confusing the fact that the weapon says "the NS is strength 8 but, rather than using the target's toughness value their leadership is used..." with "the NS is strength 8" [out of context]. You are making the mistake, again, of taking a clause of a rule completely out of context. The weapon is not "strength 8." The weapon is "strength X, and the NS is strength 8 but, rather than using the target's toughness value their leadership is used..." Sorry, but you don't get to pick and choose the bits of a rule you like while ignoring the rest.

In short, Skyth has it, and to add: the weapon is strength 8 only against enemy leadership. That, in short, is the correct interpretation, and the only one justified by the RAW.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/251281.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/251281.page GMT
Which is exactly what makes it apply to Instant Death.

Instant Death applies if the model was wounded by a weapon with a Strength at least double the model's Toughness.

The fact that the wound was made using the models Ld instead of Toughness is completely irrelevant, because ID doesn't specify an exception for models wounded in any particular fashion.

[i]How[/i] the model is wounded plays no part whatsoever in ID calculation. All that apples is whether or not the weapon's Strength is at least double the model's Toughness.

The NS, when it wounds, has S8. If 8 is at least double the model's Toughness, then that model suffers ID, [i]regardless[/i] of whether or not the model's T is actually used in the calculation of the wound... because the ID rules don't care if the S or T are actually used. All that matters is what those values [i]are[/i].

Unless someone can point to the part in the ID rules that specifies that it only applies if the model's Toughness is actually used for wound calculation, claiming that ID doesn't apply to the NS is adding a restriction that simply doesn't exist in the rules.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/251294.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/251294.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/251306.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/251306.page GMT ID rule doesn't tell you to apply it.

Once again, ID doesn't care in the slightest how the wound was applied. All it cares about is whether the weapon's Strength is at least double the target's Toughness.

The fact that the target's Toughness wasn't actually used to apply the wound doesn't matter a jot, because the ID rules make no distinction for wounds applied in a fashion that is different to normal.

If no such distinction is made, then no such distinction applies. You can wound with the weapon's S vs the target's Ld, Attacks, or underwear size, and it won't make a lick of difference to the ID rule, which simply tells you to compare the S of the weapon that caused the wound to the target's Toughness. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/251323.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/251323.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/251324.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/251324.page GMT Ld value is used to determine whether or not the model is wounded.

ID is not a part of the wounding process. It's a seperate effect that applies [i]after[/i] the model has been wounded.

To determine if the NS wounds: compare the NS's Strength of 8 to the model's Leadership.

If the model is wounded, we then refer to the ID rule, which tells us that the model suffers Instant Death if it is wounded by 'something' that has a Strength at least double the model's Toughness.

The model's Leadership is no longer relevant at this point. You've already rolled to wound, which is the [i]only[/i] point at which the NS tells us to substitute the model's LD for Toughness.

So ID remains as normal: compare the Strength of the 'something' that wounded the model to the model's Toughness. This is not a Wound roll, it's a simple comparison of stats. So the NS's rule telling us to substitute the Ld [i]when rolling to wound[/i] simply doesn't apply.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/251332.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/251332.page GMT FAQ would be stupid, and incompetent.

Did I get that right?
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/251340.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/251340.page GMT
How do you resolve this? Where I stand, its the one discrepancy that shoots your interpretation in the foot. The model simply isn't being wounded by a weapon with a normalized strength value, and that's what the ID rules depend upon. They don't apply because the NS has its own special rules, and in their entirety they don't interact with the normal rules for resolving wounds in any significant way.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/251357.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/251357.page GMT
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/251367.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/251367.page GMT ID rules depend upon.[/quote]

No they don't. They rely on the strength of whatever wounded the model. [i]Nothing[/i] in the rules even hints at a 'normalized' strength being in any way relevant.


But I think I've repeated myself enough for today. Regardless of the interpretation that you personally choose, this little argument should at the very least show that not everybody reads the NS rule the way you do... which is a good reason for it to be in the FAQ.


]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/251379.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/251379.page GMT FAQ would be stupid, and incompetent.

Did I get that right?
[/quote]

Yes, it would be stupid to include in a FAQ. In an environment as competitive as the one at Adepticon, you would hope that everyone involved would have at least read the first paragraph of p. 23 in the BGB... And realized that the NS's "strength characteristic," as defined there, is in fact "X," and therefore can not possibly interact with the instant death rule, which presumably operates on the "strength characteristic" defined on p. 23. Weapons of "S X," one would hope that it obviously follows, work in exception to the rules laid out by the BGB...

Thereby, being only found at this point in Codex books, and not referencing the main rule set in any way, weapons of "S X" do in fact operate in their own little never-never land, independent of the main rule set, because specific codex rules override the main rules however specifically stated.

EDIT: Really, I think it's completely pathetic that I had to resort to pointing out [i]in detail[/i] one of the most basic concepts described in the BGB...]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/251384.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/251384.page GMT
I am also curious how much you can change the formation of units with lash of submission, most die hard gamers would scream if even one thing is half an inch off while the same pepole would try to use the roughly wording for bunching them up.. also.. didnt Gav T say that it was normal movement with nothing special about the formation, at the last GT or did I just read something false?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/251402.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/251402.page GMT BGB...[/quote]

It would be less pathetic if it actually had any bearing on the argument.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/251407.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/251407.page GMT Da Call.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/251615.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/208090/251615.page GMT