http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/6.page JForum - http://www.jforum.net FAQ council has finished going through the 2.0 revision of the INAT FAQ, and we're releasing version 2.0 for a "public beta" so to speak. We've gone through the new 40K 5 rules and each codex, and provided answers for the most frequently asked questions that pop up in tournaments.

This document is, of course, entirely unofficial, but we believe that it provides a valuable tool for tournament organizers and 40K players in general to use to resolve some of the thorny issues that pop up during play. It isn't meant to replace the GW FAQs in any way - in fact, the questions answered in the GW FAQs are not addressed in this document.

[url=http://www.adepticon.org/files/INATFAQv2.0.pdf]Click here to download the INAT FAQ ver 2.0[/url]

We welcome comments from the greater 40K community about the rulings made in the INAT FAQ. You can post comments in this thread, or email us at: awc_nfp@yahoo.com

FYI, this year the FAQ Council consisted of 9 members. The questions were generated through our own review of the rules, submitted to the council by members of the 40K community, or from monitoring various 40K web forums to see what questions came up often. The vast majority of the questions were answered with unanimous or near-unanimous consent. The contested questions were debated (at great length) and the majority opinion used.

Again, [url=http://www.adepticon.org/files/INATFAQv2.0.pdf]click here to download the INAT FAQ ver 2.0[/url].

NOTE: You need to have Adobe Acrobat Reader ver. 7.0 or later to view this file.

Discussion on the various rulings and suggestions for improvement can be added to this thread here:
[url]http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/225533.page[/url]

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/490498.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/490498.page GMT Please note, this is [b]NOT[/b] the final version. Just as with previous years we will be listening to any and all constructive feedback and will be incorporating as much of it as we can into the final version of the FAQ.

If you see any questions missing, any glaring inconsistencies, any typographical or grammatical errors, etc, please feel post them in this thread.





]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/490570.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/490570.page GMT
[i][b]ORK.55D.01 – Q: Does a Deff Rolla affect enemy
vehicles that are rammed? If so, what about
Skimmers that manage to dodge the ram?

A: Enemy vehicles that are rammed do take an additional D6
S10 hits from the Deff Rolla. A skimmer that successfully
dodges the ram does not [clarification].[/b][/i]

Tank Shocking only works vs. non-vehicles. Ramming only works against vehicles. The effects of the deff rolla only work when Tank Shocking things(RAW). They crush people, not vehicles. If it can't be Tank Shocked then it can't be affected by a deff rolla whatsoever; ergo vehicles are not affected by a deff rolla at all. Basically, if something can be run over by the deff rolla(i.e. Tank Shocked), then it suffers all of the effects of the deff rolla. It's simply best to disabuse anybody of the notion that they can Ram Titans with deff rollas and do 2d6 Str 10 hits to them(as that would be going full retard, and some tournament players just don't need any help in this area.). The problem here is obvious.

[i]"We didn't think that Ork vehicle was dangerous, but then it drove up the Divinus Malleus' leg, crushed its head and rolled down the other side! Then the Divinus Malleus exploded and the Ork Battlewagon started driving towards us, so we ran for our lives!"

- Final words of Princeps Ugo of the Warhound Titan "Canis Rex", witness to the destruction of the Reaver Titan "Divinus Malleus", before his execution.[/i]



A Battlewagon just Rams using its Front Armor Value of 14.

Also, the author of the Ork codex stated in an interview/Q&A session that Trukks cannot Ram as they are not substantial enough to Ram anything, and will in effect explode into bits upon contact(ref. "The Road Warrior"- Humongous vs. semi ), even if they have a ram bar. Trukks can run over people(i.e. Tank Shock) but not Ram. That leaves only Tanks able to ram, as per the rules. Non-Tanks cannot Ram(RAW). ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/490671.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/490671.page GMT FAQ.

But, where did you find the [RAW] for considering Staff of Ulthramar a double-handed weapon?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/490824.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/490824.page GMT We welcome comments from the greater 40K community about the rulings made in the INAT FAQ. You can post comments in this thread, or email us at: awc_nfp@yahoo.com
[/quote]

Impressive work

I have a couple of comments on the Space wolf section:

[i]SW.06A.02 – Q: Does ‘Storm Caller’ really allow the unit to ‘strike first’ in close combat?
A: No, when assaulted the unit simply counts as being in cover. This means any charging enemies who direct any of their attacks towards models protected by Storm Caller counts as having assaulted through cover. Ignore this rule if the protected models were already locked in combat from a previous turn when charged. A unit protected by Storm Caller that assaults an enemy through cover still strikes at their regular Initiative [clarification].[/i]

It's worth clarifying this so it says that it's only when attacking through cover that combat is resolved in order of initiative.
When assaulting a unit that's not in cover a unit protected by Storm Caller would strike first (Except for attacks with I1 of course).


[i]SW.10A.03 – Q: Do Blood Claw that Counter-Attack get a +2 Attack bonus because of ‘Berserk Charge’?
A: No, just the normal +1 Attack bonus [clarification].[/i]

The Big Rulebook clearly states on page 74 '[b]exactly as if they too had assaulted[/b]' so yes, BCs do get +2 attacks - RAW
Same again for BCs on bikes and for Ragnar Blackmane.
How did you come to the conclusion that they only get +1A?

[i]SW.15N.01 – Q: Can a model with a Wolf Tooth Necklace ignore persistent psychic abilities like Veil of Tears, Conceal, The Horror, etc?
A: Yes, the psychic ability still functions, however the model with the Necklace is able to ignore any an all effects of the ability [RAW].[/i]

You're getting Wolf Tooth Necklace and Wolf Tail Talisman mixed up here and in the next couple of questions.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/490864.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/490864.page GMT
Pg. 43- Your comments on Howling banshees is vague, and doesnt mention anything as per their possible use of the acrobatic exarch power. This should probly be addressed.

Pg. 8- Your comments on weapons that are no classified as single handed weapons or close combat weapons, would this be the basis for your decision on the staff of ultramar? Also, what is your basis for this assesment?

Pg. 9- What is the interpretation of this in conjunction with the Space Wolf Chooser of the Slain. Id infer that it doesnt give you an additional power fist attack as it doesnt specificy however at the time the codex was written this rule hadnt even been dreampt of.

Pg. 64- Why is "Old and Wise" not usuable on a roll to seize the iniative? This roll directly pertains as to who goes first.

Pg. 64+65- Bloodclaw units: What is the basis for your decision regarding "beserk charge" and "counter attack" It would appear RAW that they do in fact get +2 attacks as counter attack allows the unit to count as charging, thus receiving +1 attack, wich beserk charge in turn replaces with +2.

Pg. 65- You have Wolf Tooth Necklace confused with Wolf Tail Talisman....]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/490870.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/490870.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/490880.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/490880.page GMT DE section of the FAQ.

For the DE poisoned blades and scissor hands, you reference the poisoned weapons rule from the main rule book. Does this mean that the DE poisoned weapons are no longer more potent than other races', or do they still wound on 2+ as per the codex?

Also, I believe that the clarification in the DE FAQ for the Xenospasm refers to the fact that a single unit could have an IC armed with a Xenospasm and an upgrade character armed with a Terrorfex; if both were fired at the same unit, the negative modifiers to the Pinning test should be cumulative for both.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/490966.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/490966.page GMT
[i]SW.10A.03 – Q: Do Blood Claw that Counter-Attack get a +2 Attack bonus because of ‘Berserk Charge’?
A: No, just the normal +1 Attack bonus [clarification].[/i]

The Big Rulebook clearly states on page 74 '[b]exactly as if they too had assaulted[/b]' so yes, BCs do get +2 attacks - RAW
Same again for BCs on bikes and for Ragnar Blackmane.
How did you come to the conclusion that they only get +1A?

[/quote]


Seconded.

The latter part of the rule, "exactly as if they too had assaulted" combines with the Berserk Charge wording that states, "They receive a bonus of +2 attacks when they charge, rather than only +1 attack [b]as is normally the case[/b]," (emphasis mine). The Counter-Attack USR sets the condition (count as assaulting), and then the Berserk Charge rule clearly defines a bonus received when said condition is met. This bonus even explicitly overrides the normal rule (+1A).

I believe this logic is RAW, and that RAW is the standard you are using for Counter-Attack as demonstrated later in the FAQ:

"SW.15M.01 – Q: Does a model with a Wolf Pelt get a
total of +2 Attacks when he counter-attacks?
A: Yes [RAW]."

EDIT: I guess another argument I would present is the case of the Deff-Rolla.
Deff-Rolla adds attacks when tank shocking. -> Ramming is a type of tank shocking -> Deff-Rolla adds attacks when Ramming.
so...
Berserk Charge give +2A when Assaulting. -> Successful Counter-Attack results in model counting as Assaulting -> Berserk Charge gives +2A with Successful Counter-Attack.

Also, by extension, Ragnar Blackmane should be +3A when Counter-Attacking (+2A for Berserk Charge, +1A for Wolf Pelt). /edit

Great work guys. Cheers!]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/490968.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/490968.page GMT RB.67F.01 – Q: When a transport vehicle suffers a ‘Destroyed – explodes!’ result its passengers must be placed “where the vehicle used to be”. What exactly does this mean?

A: Passengers must be placed wholly inside the area of the table that the vehicle’s hull previously occupied. Any models that cannot fit entirely within this area or are within 1” of an enemy model are removed from play as a casualty. In addition, the models count as having disembarked from a vehicle (and so cannot assault the same turn if the vehicle wasn’t open-topped, for example) [rules change].
[/quote]

This is fairly harsh for a self-described Rules Change. There's nothing in the rules that indicates that models get auto-removed if they don't fit. Can you fit 20 bases within the footprint of the new official ork battlewagon model? If not, I think this is a very poor decision. Can you fit 10 bases within the footprint of a rhino? Or 12 within a chimera? And, if you can fit all the transportable models within the footprint of every relevant transport model, what's the point of making a case for models that don't fit?


[quote]
the same movement phase it moves ‘flat out’ (by ramming another vehicle, for example) are the models onboard destroyed?

A: No, in this case all models onboard count as being destroyed [clarification].
[/quote]

That doesn't make sense. The question asks are the models destroyed. The answer says No, they count as being destroyed. If you say 'No', doesn't that mean they're not destroyed?


[quote]
[For drop pods that are unable to open] both players can agree before the game to either pretend, to the best of their abilities, that the doors are open and both players can see ‘through’ the core for line of sight purposes, or they can agree to play that the model blocks line of sight ‘as is’
[/quote]

What if the two players cannot agree? Is there a default behaviour?


[quote]
BT.29A.01 – Q: Do Black Templar models in Terminator Armor always count as stationary when shooting a rapid fire weapon? Can they assault the same turn they shoot a rapid fire or heavy weapon?

A: They may assault the same turn they shoot with rapid fire or heavy weapons [rules change]. They do not, however always count as stationary when shooting a rapid fire weapon (just with heavy weapons) [RAW].
[/quote]

This is just weird. Why have a rules change for half of this, but not the other half? It seems counter-intuitive. Couldn't you just [rules change] both aspects of the question to simplify this?


]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/490973.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/490973.page GMT
[b]On Deff Rollas and Ramming:[/b]
Essentially, after reading the rules, we determined that a ramming attack is a subset of the Tank Shocking rules. In particular, the rulebook says "Ramming is a special type of tank shock move and is executed in the same way..."

[quote=shabbadoo]Also, the author of the Ork codex stated in an interview/Q&A session that Trukks cannot Ram as they are not substantial enough to Ram anything, and will in effect explode into bits upon contact(ref. "The Road Warrior"- Humongous vs. semi ), even if they have a ram bar. Trukks can run over people(i.e. Tank Shock) but not Ram. That leaves only Tanks able to ram, as per the rules. Non-Tanks cannot Ram(RAW).[/quote]

Not that we're binding ourselves to answers that aren't in the GW FAQ, but do you have a source for this?

[quote=Zubb]But, where did you find the [RAW] for considering Staff of Ulthramar a double-handed weapon?[/quote]

To be honest, I can't remember exactly. I think it was because it's not defined as being a single-handed weapon, but I may be wrong.

[quote=LPetersson]
[i]SW.06A.02 – Q: Does ‘Storm Caller’ really allow the unit to ‘strike first’ in close combat?
A: No, when assaulted the unit simply counts as being in cover. This means any charging enemies who direct any of their attacks towards models protected by Storm Caller counts as having assaulted through cover. Ignore this rule if the protected models were already locked in combat from a previous turn when charged. A unit protected by Storm Caller that assaults an enemy through cover still strikes at their regular Initiative [clarification].[/i][/quote]

It's worth clarifying this so it says that it's only when attacking through cover that combat is resolved in order of initiative.
When assaulting a unit that's not in cover a unit protected by Storm Caller would strike first (Except for attacks with I1 of course).
[/quote]

We'll take a look.

[quote=LPetersson]
[i]SW.10A.03 – Q: Do Blood Claw that Counter-Attack get a +2 Attack bonus because of ‘Berserk Charge’?
A: No, just the normal +1 Attack bonus [clarification].[/i]

The Big Rulebook clearly states on page 74 '[b]exactly as if they too had assaulted[/b]' so yes, BCs do get +2 attacks - RAW
Same again for BCs on bikes and for Ragnar Blackmane.
How did you come to the conclusion that they only get +1A?
[/quote]

Because the full rule for counterattack states: "If the test is successful, all models in the unit get the +1 assault bonus to their attacks, exactly if they had assaulted that turn." In other words, they get the normal assault bonus in a counter-attack, not the Berserk Charge bonus.

[quote=LPetersson]
[i]SW.15N.01 – Q: Can a model with a Wolf Tooth Necklace ignore persistent psychic abilities like Veil of Tears, Conceal, The Horror, etc?
A: Yes, the psychic ability still functions, however the model with the Necklace is able to ignore any an all effects of the ability [RAW].[/i]

You're getting Wolf Tooth Necklace and Wolf Tail Talisman mixed up here and in the next couple of questions.
[/quote]

Good catch. Thanks.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/490984.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/490984.page GMT
I'd also disagree with spore mines granting kill points - they're effectively the same thing as the Scout Biker booby traps, except they float around. They're bullets, not infantry.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/490990.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/490990.page GMT [quote=LPetersson]
[i]SW.10A.03 – Q: Do Blood Claw that Counter-Attack get a +2 Attack bonus because of ‘Berserk Charge’?
A: No, just the normal +1 Attack bonus [clarification].[/i]

The Big Rulebook clearly states on page 74 '[b]exactly as if they too had assaulted[/b]' so yes, BCs do get +2 attacks - RAW
Same again for BCs on bikes and for Ragnar Blackmane.
How did you come to the conclusion that they only get +1A?
[/quote]

Because the full rule for counterattack states: "If the test is successful, all models in the unit get the +1 assault bonus to their attacks, exactly if they had assaulted that turn." In other words, they get the normal assault bonus in a counter-attack, not the Berserk Charge bonus.
[/quote]

Since they get their normal assault bonus they'll be getting +2A since that [i]is[/i] their normal assault bonus thanks to berserk charge...
If you use RAW, then that is fairly easy to prove with very little room for discussion.
Berserk Charge clearly states that they replace +1A with +2A when charging, and Counter Attack clearly states that they count as assaulting.
So, +2A...]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/490994.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/490994.page GMT
RB.45C.01 I'll just disagree and say that one step away from your table edge is doubling back. So your call is (IMO) a Rules Change, not a clarification.

RB.63F.01 and 02 I agree with no pile-in/consolidate towards the non-WS vehicle, but why would they have to move 1" away from the non-WS vehicle? Rules do not require that, and as long as they meet all other requirements on the pile-in, why do they have to move away from the non-WS vehicle? I'd say that no additional models my contact the vehicle, but 5th ed rules do allow you to stay in contact with the vehicle.

RB.67A.02 Hmmm, what about Emergency Disembarkation?

RB.69B.01 Disagree. Only tanks can Ram, the ability to Tank Shock has no bearing.

RB.70H.01 Again, what about Emergency Disembarkation?

DH.31A.01 Spelling error, threat should be treat...........

Possible question, can Inquisitors (psykers) be allied with Black Templars, as long as they take no psychic powers?

Possible question, Are Ravenwing Landspeeders from a Ravenwing Attack squadron a scoring unit, ie able to control an objective?

ELD.35G.01 No, Intercept cannot be used on Walkers. Intercept ability may only be used on vehicles that do not have a WS, per the Eldar FAQ.

Possible question. Does or can Eldrad receive +1 attack if he chooses to use sword and pistol, or does the two special weapons rule take precedence? Same thing for Calgar and his fists/power sword?

IG.47.01 Hmmmmm, aren't codex versions of a USR supposed to supercede main rulbook versions? So the IG Sentinel should use the codex version which includes teh may always deploy bit, right?

IG.38.01 Might clarify that some units can deploy normally while others can infitrate, and that a senitnel squadron can always be deployed (see IG.47.01 comment) regardless of what the rest of the platoon does.

NEC.21E.02 Earlier stated that special forms of movement could only be used (while falling back) if it moved the unit closer to their board edge. Why isn't that qualifier present here?

Might want to address WBB vs Sweeping Advance

ORK.55D.01 I'll just say I disagree and leave it at that

Ork.93H.01 As already stated, only Tanks can Ram, ability to Tank Shock does not confer the ability to Ram

SM.57H.02 Falling back, why not? As long as it takes them closer to their board edge? Yes, I realize this might be used to get them over 6" away from a unit escorting them off the table.

SM.73A.01 Techmarine is an IC with a unit, why doesn't he give up a separate kill point from the unit?

SW.GEN.01 Might want to add Landspeeder Storm to the list

SW.15G.01/RB.48A.02 Seems like the same question, but different answers...............


And Merry Christmas (or holiday of your choice/persuasion)
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/490999.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/490999.page GMT DE section of the FAQ.

For the DE poisoned blades and scissor hands, you reference the poisoned weapons rule from the main rule book. Does this mean that the DE poisoned weapons are no longer more potent than other races', or do they still wound on 2+ as per the codex?[/quote]

By RAW, poisoned weapons can be anything from 2+ to 4+, so I don't think the DE poisoned weapons will change how they work. Visiting family for the holiday, so I don't have my DE codex available.

[quote=Saldiven]
Also, I believe that the clarification in the DE FAQ for the Xenospasm refers to the fact that a single unit could have an IC armed with a Xenospasm and an upgrade character armed with a Terrorfex; if both were fired at the same unit, the negative modifiers to the Pinning test should be cumulative for both.[/quote]

We'll look into it.

[quote=Redbeard][quote]
RB.67F.01 – Q: When a transport vehicle suffers a ‘Destroyed – explodes!’ result its passengers must be placed “where the vehicle used to be”. What exactly does this mean?

A: Passengers must be placed wholly inside the area of the table that the vehicle’s hull previously occupied. Any models that cannot fit entirely within this area or are within 1” of an enemy model are removed from play as a casualty. In addition, the models count as having disembarked from a vehicle (and so cannot assault the same turn if the vehicle wasn’t open-topped, for example) [rules change].
[/quote]

This is fairly harsh for a self-described Rules Change. There's nothing in the rules that indicates that models get auto-removed if they don't fit. Can you fit 20 bases within the footprint of the new official ork battlewagon model? If not, I think this is a very poor decision. Can you fit 10 bases within the footprint of a rhino? Or 12 within a chimera? And, if you can fit all the transportable models within the footprint of every relevant transport model, what's the point of making a case for models that don't fit?[/quote]

I think you can, but we'll look into it. The first part of that answer is RAW, by the way. Then second part really is more of a clarification than a change (and only applies if the vehicle is destroyed in the owning player's turn).

[quote=Redbeard][quote]
the same movement phase it moves ‘flat out’ (by ramming another vehicle, for example) are the models onboard destroyed?

A: No, in this case all models onboard count as being destroyed [clarification].
[/quote]

That doesn't make sense. The question asks are the models destroyed. The answer says No, they count as being destroyed. If you say 'No', doesn't that mean they're not destroyed? [/quote]

Typo!

[quote=Redbeard]
[quote]
[For drop pods that are unable to open] both players can agree before the game to either pretend, to the best of their abilities, that the doors are open and both players can see ‘through’ the core for line of sight purposes, or they can agree to play that the model blocks line of sight ‘as is’
[/quote]

What if the two players cannot agree? Is there a default behaviour?[/quote]

The mighty D6 shall decide... (added to the v2.1 review list)

[quote=Redbeard]
[quote]
BT.29A.01 – Q: Do Black Templar models in Terminator Armor always count as stationary when shooting a rapid fire weapon? Can they assault the same turn they shoot a rapid fire or heavy weapon?

A: They may assault the same turn they shoot with rapid fire or heavy weapons [rules change]. They do not, however always count as stationary when shooting a rapid fire weapon (just with heavy weapons) [RAW].
[/quote]

This is just weird. Why have a rules change for half of this, but not the other half? It seems counter-intuitive. Couldn't you just [rules change] both aspects of the question to simplify this?
[/quote]

To be honest, I can't remember exactly what was discussed here. I've flagged it for review.


]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491006.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491006.page GMT
I'd also disagree with spore mines granting kill points - they're effectively the same thing as the Scout Biker booby traps, except they float around. They're bullets, not infantry.[/quote]

They can't hold objectives. But they can contest objectives, and they're definitely units.

Yes, its a harsh ruling, but the only way around it is to essentially make up rules and then apply them to bunches of other similar things.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491008.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491008.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491032.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491032.page GMT RB.45C.01 I'll just disagree and say that one step away from your table edge is doubling back. So your call is (IMO) a Rules Change, not a clarification. [/quote]

Depends on how you interpret "doubling back". but the rules are pretty clear when they say "full fall back move in any direction".

[quote=don_mondo]
RB.63F.01 and 02 I agree with no pile-in/consolidate towards the non-WS vehicle, but why would they have to move 1" away from the non-WS vehicle? Rules do not require that, and as long as they meet all other requirements on the pile-in, why do they have to move away from the non-WS vehicle? I'd say that no additional models my contact the vehicle, but 5th ed rules do allow you to stay in contact with the vehicle. [/quote]

Basically, because A) multiple combats involving vehicles ignores the vehicles, and pile-in moves may not be not be used to contact enemy units not involved in the assault. Since you ignore the vehicles, they're not involved in the assault for the pile-in moves.

[quote=don_mondo]
RB.67A.02 Hmmm, what about Emergency Disembarkation?
[/quote]

Flagged for review.

[quote=don_mondo]
RB.69B.01 Disagree. Only tanks can Ram, the ability to Tank Shock has no bearing. [/quote]

Where does it say that?

[quote=don_mondo]
Possible question, can Inquisitors (psykers) be allied with Black Templars, as long as they take no psychic powers?

Possible question, Are Ravenwing Landspeeders from a Ravenwing Attack squadron a scoring unit, ie able to control an objective?[/quote]

Added for review.


[quote=don_mondo]
ELD.35G.01 No, Intercept cannot be used on Walkers. Intercept ability may only be used on vehicles that do not have a WS, per the Eldar FAQ. [/quote]

Good catch.

[quote=don_mondo]
Possible question. Does or can Eldrad receive +1 attack if he chooses to use sword and pistol, or does the two special weapons rule take precedence? Same thing for Calgar and his fists/power sword?[/quote]

Flagged for review.

[quote=don_mondo]
IG.47.01 Hmmmmm, aren't codex versions of a USR supposed to supercede main rulbook versions? So the IG Sentinel should use the codex version which includes teh may always deploy bit, right?[/quote]

Flagged for review.

[quote=don_mondo]
IG.38.01 Might clarify that some units can deploy normally while others can infitrate, and that a senitnel squadron can always be deployed (see IG.47.01 comment) regardless of what the rest of the platoon does. [/quote]

Actually, that's a trickier one. The rules for command platoons are actually different than the rules for regular platoons.

[quote=don_mondo]
NEC.21E.02 Earlier stated that special forms of movement could only be used (while falling back) if it moved the unit closer to their board edge. Why isn't that qualifier present here? [/quote]

Monolith is moving the models.

[quote=don_mondo]Might want to address WBB vs Sweeping Advance[/quote]

People actually think they get WBB against Sweeping Advance?

[quote=don_mondo]
ORK.55D.01 I'll just say I disagree and leave it at that[/quote]
Okay.

[quote=don_mondo]
SM.57H.02 Falling back, why not? As long as it takes them closer to their board edge? Yes, I realize this might be used to get them over 6" away from a unit escorting them off the table. [/quote]

Falling back is involuntary movement, essentially. Gate is voluntary movement.

[quote=don_mondo]
SM.73A.01 Techmarine is an IC with a unit, why doesn't he give up a separate kill point from the unit? [/quote]

He's not an IC until the cannon is destroyed.

[quote=don_mondo]
SW.GEN.01 Might want to add Landspeeder Storm to the list
[/quote]

Probably do.

[quote=don_mondo]
SW.15G.01/RB.48A.02 Seems like the same question, but different answers...............
[/quote]

Good catch.

FYI, we've tried to be as consistent as possible, but the review process took up three 2-3 hour conference calls over four evenings, so its possible we've missed something. If you find something that appears self-contradictory, please help us by letting us know.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491035.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491035.page GMT Since they get their normal assault bonus they'll be getting +2A since that [i]is[/i] their normal assault bonus thanks to berserk charge...
If you use RAW, then that is fairly easy to prove with very little room for discussion.
Berserk Charge clearly states that they replace +1A with +2A when charging, and Counter Attack clearly states that they count as assaulting.
So, +2A...[/quote]
I agree. +1 Attack would be a rules change, not a rules clarification. I don't think one can argue +1 attack instead of +2 attack without destroying the Codex>Rulebook formula we have been given.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491037.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491037.page GMT
[quote]RB.41C.01 – Q: The rules on page 41 seem to indicate
that a unit fighting in an existing close combat that is
charged by another enemy unit cannot direct their
attacks at this new threat. Is this correct?
A: No. The “beginning of the combat” is after all assault
moves are completed, therefore a model in base contact with
multiple enemy units can always choose to attack an enemy
unit that has just charged it [RAW].[/quote]

First off let quote the actual rules themselves

[quote]RB.41C - ATTACKING
In Multiple Combats, when it is time for a model to attack, the following extra rules apply:

Models that were engaged with just one of the enemy units at the beginning of the combat (before any model attacked) must attack that unit.

Models that were engaged with more than one enemy unit at the beginning of the combat (before any model attacked) may split their attacks freely between those units. Declare how they are splitting their attacks immediately before rolling to hit.[/quote]

I believe what you are trying to say here is that this rule applies in a model by model situation not in a unit by unit situation as you believe it is currently and generally believed.

Secondly, under your ruling, I am having a hard time understanding the situation that would force the attacking model to trigger this rule and only get to attack a model from an enemy unit that it was engaged with previous to the defined 'beginning of combat'

Again descriptions to support this FAQ would be welcome

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491052.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491052.page GMT RAW - or even RAI for that matter. Units that have the Counter Attack that pass a leadership are counted as charging - in normal circumstances this means +1A as presented in the BRB. In Blood Claws case, they have a modifier which takes precedence.

Another example - a unit which has both Counter Attack and Furious Charge (I don't think there is, but it's the best analogy I can think of.) If it passed its leadership check, would it not get +1S and +1I as well? Yes, because it moves "Exactly as if charging"]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491063.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491063.page GMT FAQ:
BA.06DD.01 – Q: Do Blood Angels models in
Terminator Armor always count as stationary when
shooting a rapid fire weapon?
A: No they do not [RAW]

WHAT?! I'm sorry but this just seems like shoddy GW copy pasting, and not a RAW thing.

I've got one you can add as well.
Could you please clarify what the "Sever the head and destroy the body" asset is from Apocalypse reload? It is given by a marine datasheet but is not actually in the assets section of Apocalypse or Reload. Most places play it as "Trophy Kill."]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491066.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491066.page GMT
RB.69B.01 Disagree. Only tanks can Ram, the ability to Tank Shock has no bearing.


Where does it say that? [/quote]

main rulebook page 68 under main heading of [b]"TANKS"[/b], the second paragraph is one sentence.......

[i]Tanks follow the normal rules for vehicles, with the additions and exceptions given below.[/i]

Then the first subsection under the [b]TANKS[/b] main heading is Tank Shock! followed by [i]Death or Glory[/i] and then [i]RAMMING[/i] both found on page 69.

So clearly (cough) the rules for tak shock and ramming are subsets of the TANK rules. Also it constantly describes the vehicle that is in questions each times as a TANK. The only reason it switches to [i]vehicle[/i] in the generic sense is to describe both the tank doing the ramming, and the target which may not be a tank so the word vehicle is used there. The special rule of +1 for mass if the vehicle is a tank is listed because when determining the potential damage done by the vehicle that gets rammed, the target vehicle may or may not be a tank, so it may or may not get the +1 for a tanks mass.

Clear as mud? I tend to type as I think , so this may not be as clear as intended. to summarize.....tank shcok and ramming are subsets of the TANKS rules...so therefore they apply to TANKS.

m'kay?
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491071.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491071.page GMT
[quote]RB.67A.02 – Q: If a unit embarks on a transport and
in the same movement phase the transport is
‘Destroyed’ (by ramming another vehicle, for
example) are the models onboard allowed to
disembark?
A: No, in this case all models onboard count as being
destroyed [clarification].
Ref: RB.70H.01[/quote]

You need to clarify that this applies to only passengers of a fast moving vehicle (as you cite in your rules reference). As otherwise this clearly contradicts the RAW on page 67 for passengers of vehicle that is not moving fast.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491083.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491083.page GMT APOC.91C.02 – Q: Since Gargantuan Creatures’ close
combat attacks against vehicles count as Ordnance,
do they get to roll 2D6 and pick the highest result for
each hit?
A: No, their Attacks only count as Ordnance when rolling on
the Vehicle Damage table, not when rolling for Armor
Penetration [RAW].


yakface but doesn't ordnance in 5th edition not give any bonus to the damage chart? Doesn't that mean that the Gargantuan creature would only be for Armour penetration rolls then? more clarification on this would be appreciated.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491088.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491088.page GMT SW.06A.02 – Q: Does ‘Storm Caller’ really allow the unit to ‘strike first’ in close combat?
A: No, when assaulted the unit simply counts as being in cover. This means any charging enemies who direct any of their attacks towards models protected by Storm Caller counts as having assaulted through cover. Ignore this rule if the protected models were already locked in combat from a previous turn when charged. A unit protected by Storm Caller that assaults an enemy through cover still strikes at their regular Initiative [clarification].[/i]

It's worth clarifying this so it says that it's only when attacking through cover that combat is resolved in order of initiative.
When assaulting a unit that's not in cover a unit protected by Storm Caller would strike first (Except for attacks with I1 of course).[/quote]

We actually have an inherent problem with the storm caller rules and the new 5th edition basic ruleset. The problem is that in current 5th edition rules, models' initiative are only lowered to 1 for assaulting into/through cover [i]if they have to take a difficult terrain test[/i]. Therefore, such models as Striking Scorpions with Stalker will never have to worry about their initiatives being lowered when they assault into cover. Now, because cover doesn't work the same as it did when the SW codex was written, we have an interesting problem. We can go the strictly codex>rulebook route and say that units under the effect of Storm Caller strike first when assaulted [b][i]simply because the codex entry says so[/b][/i], even though it goes directly against the basic rule of assaulting into or through cover. Or we can go by the actual rules and say that units assaulting a storm callered pack of SWs do not have anything done to their initiatives because they dont' have to roll for difficult terrain.

An interesting quandary. I think the solution is unfortunately clear. Its clear because we have the precedent of codex > rulebook, but its unfortunate because that paradigm leads to a direct contradiction of the rulebook on the part of the codex, which is, of course, old beyond all reasoning. Fortunately, however, this will all be taken care of sometime in this coming year. Can't wait.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491089.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491089.page GMT YMDC.

And seriously, Blood Claws not receiving their +2 on Counter Attack really seems to go against Codex>Rule Book.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491099.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491099.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491103.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491103.page GMT kps?'

It's idiotic that if I biovore misses, it gives the enemy a kp...

Also, spawn that are created from the enemy should not give out KP's...

Both of these fall under the [Rules Change] dealing with absurd rules...]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491109.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491109.page GMT kps?'

It's idiotic that if I biovore misses, it gives the enemy a kp...

Also, spawn that are created from the enemy should not give out KP's...

Both of these fall under the [Rules Change] dealing with absurd rules...[/quote]
Aren't these exactly the kind of situations where we should step in and change the rule?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491125.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491125.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491139.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491139.page GMT
[quote=don_mondo]
RB.69B.01 Disagree. Only tanks can Ram, the ability to Tank Shock has no bearing. [/quote]

Where does it say that?

[quote=don_mondo]
IG.47.01 Hmmmmm, aren't codex versions of a USR supposed to supercede main rulbook versions? So the IG Sentinel should use the codex version which includes the may always deploy bit, right?[/quote]

Flagged for review.

[quote=don_mondo]
IG.38.01 Might clarify that some units can deploy normally while others can infitrate, and that a senitnel squadron can always be deployed (see IG.47.01 comment) regardless of what the rest of the platoon does. [/quote]

Actually, that's a trickier one. The rules for command platoons are actually different than the rules for regular platoons.

[quote=don_mondo]
SM.73A.01 Techmarine is an IC with a unit, why doesn't he give up a separate kill point from the unit? [/quote]

He's not an IC until the cannon is destroyed.

FYI, we've tried to be as consistent as possible, but the review process took up three 2-3 hour conference calls over four evenings, so its possible we've missed something. If you find something that appears self-contradictory, please help us by letting us know.

[/quote]

OK, home now, access to rulebook and codex, so to hit on the ones I didn't delete.

RB.69B.01 Barthonis already covered where it says only Tanks can Ram (For Ghaz: Cause if it doesn't say you can, then you can't and it doesn't say anything else can Ram). Tank Shock and Ram are separate game mechanics. Ability to do perform set A does not necessarily confer the abilty to perform subset B. But I'm gonna leave it at that, as was pointed out, covered plenty in YMDC.

IG.47.01 pg 74, Main rules, if a codex has it's own version of the USR, use that army uses it's own version. So IG Sentinels have their own version of Scouts, to include teh may always deploy bit. Which leads to......

IG.38.01 Command Platoon deployment. FAQ covers the fact that squads in a platoon may infiltrate while the other squads may deploy normally. Worth noting the FAQ just says Platoon, not Infantry Platoon, so it would be assumed that it applies to all types of platoons (Command, Infantry, and Heavy Weapons), right? You've already pointed out the exception for Deep Striking, this is the same thing. As for the Sentinel may always deploy bit, how about we say it's a unit specific rule from the codex that supercedes a different unit specific rule from the same codex.

SM.73A.01 Techmarine. OK, he's not an IC until the cannon is destroyed. So? Neither are my IG Officers, yet they give up a KP regardless of when or how they die. I think I see where you're getting it, the TF cannon isn't a retinue as per the Annihilation rules. So does the sequence in which they die change the situation? This applies (IMO) to gun drones etc as well. Sequence of death should not matter, all that matters is that the model(s) can become an IC or separate unit. Or does a unit that is wiped on while attempting to disembark from a destroyed vehicle not give up a kill point (as per the gun drones answer)?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491161.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491161.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491219.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491219.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491268.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491268.page GMT Because the full rule for counterattack states: "If the test is successful, all models in the unit get the +1 assault bonus to their attacks, exactly if they had assaulted that turn." In other words, they get the normal assault bonus in a counter-attack, not the Berserk Charge bonus.
[/quote]

Centurian99, I would love to hear your response to this opposing argument:

[quote=ubermosher]
The latter part of the rule, "exactly as if they too had assaulted" combines with the Berserk Charge wording that states, "They receive a bonus of +2 attacks when they charge, [b]rather than only +1 attack as is normally the case[/b]," (emphasis mine). The Counter-Attack USR sets the condition (count as assaulting), and then the Berserk Charge rule clearly defines a bonus received when said condition is met. This bonus even explicitly overrides the normal rule (+1A).
[/quote]

Again, Berserk Charge explicitly overrides the normal rule of +1A]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491298.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491298.page GMT
Just another question though:
On RB.22A.02: I was under the impression that waving arms don't count as part of the model for being shot at, so why would it be counted when checking to see if you could shoot over said model?

And a question: Is a Relic Blade a two-handed weapon and can it be combined with a Shield.

Ta.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491392.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491392.page GMT ccw in a round model doesnot provoke an assault? It is Important for Autarch.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491496.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491496.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491505.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491505.page GMT
[b]On Deff Rollas and Ramming:[/b]
Essentially, after reading the rules, we determined that a ramming attack is a subset of the Tank Shocking rules. In particular, the rulebook says "Ramming is a special type of tank shock move and is executed in the same way..."

[quote=shabbadoo]Also, the author of the Ork codex stated in an interview/Q&A session that Trukks cannot Ram as they are not substantial enough to Ram anything, and will in effect explode into bits upon contact(ref. "The Road Warrior"- Humongous vs. semi ), even if they have a ram bar. Trukks can run over people(i.e. Tank Shock) but not Ram. That leaves only Tanks able to ram, as per the rules. Non-Tanks cannot Ram(RAW).[/quote]

Not that we're binding ourselves to answers that aren't in the GW FAQ, but do you have a source for this?[/quote]

The source was a Games Day retailer seminar given by Phil Kelly(and Jes Goodwin I think?). Somebody was video taping the seminar, but they had to shut down the video due to sneak previews of various miniatures. However, they were allowed to keep the audio running and this question came up, and was answered, during the the Q&A session. The initial vido plus all of the audio was posted on-line, but I don't know the link to it offhand. Somebody in the community might be able to track it down. I'll hunt for it myself too.

As to other folks, the reason Ramming is a "special kind of Tank Shock" is because it can only be used against VEHICLES, so it is not a sub-set of the Tank Shock rule but a whole other rule in and of itself. That is kind why they have it in Bold Print in the rulebook just after the Tank Shock rules and not delineated as a sub-set rule in smaller print. It is a wholely separate rule, and the only thing it has in common with Tank Shock is that you have to run something over to do it. That is the distinction. All vehicles that can Tank Shock cannot Ram. Only Tanks can ram. Ram bars don't allow for Ramming(despite the name), and the deff rolla rules only apply to Tank Shock(RAW), not Ramming. When they say Tank Shock they do actually mean Tank Shock, not Ramming. Do not confuse the two, Tank Shock and Ramming are two very distinct terms and rules, and the reinforced ram rules and the deff rolla rules are very clear on which *one* of these rules they each use(RAW).

A steamroller(deff rolla) can squash a person flat nice and easy, but it can't flatten a battle tank. There's your "Um...duh?" explanation. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491516.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491516.page GMT no-no-no what you speak about is obvious =)

i mean nowhere is said that lance IS a ccw

it is a ranged weapon that counts as a pw on a turn blah-blah-blah

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491534.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491534.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491537.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491537.page GMT
(i'm not that badass but some of my opponents are)]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491539.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491539.page GMT D6 S10 hits on vehicles. If nothing else this may prompt GW to get off their lazy asses and FAQ it sometime before 2011 if this is not what they intended for the Deff Rolla.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491545.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491545.page GMT FAQ with some controversial decisions, than rules full of holes and no FAQ at all.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491546.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491546.page GMT Q: How is the Whirlwind Launcher
mounted and can it fire both ‘Vengeance’ and
‘Incendiary Castellan’ missiles in the same game?
A: Yes [clarification].

I take it 'YES' is to whether it can fire both types during a game. The type of mounting, however (first part of question) is not covered. Is it a turret or (fixed) Hull-mount.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491574.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491574.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491580.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491580.page GMT RAW (All attacks from followers of Nurgle ignore armour saves!) to not include all attacks? I'm pretty sure that someone shooting at you is an attack, and not a display of affection or a marraige proposal...]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491661.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491661.page GMT IG.GEN.02 – Q: When models are part of a Heavy
Weapon team do either of them have a Lasgun?
A: Both models have a lasgun and either may fire the
heavy weapon (but not both at the same time) while the
other model fires his lasgun [RAW]. [/quote]

So am I correct in reading this in that if the HW team moves, both can fire their lasguns?



[quote]IG.44.01 – Q: Can individual units of an Infantry
Platoon be held in Reserve?
A: Individual units of an Infantry Platoon may be held in
Reserve while others are deployed normally. When rolling for
Reserves, only a single roll is made for all elements of the
Infantry Platoon that are in Reserve. In ‘Dawn of War’
missions, each unit in the Platoon counts as a separate unit
for how many units may be deployed [clarification]. [/quote]
You say that each squad in an infantry platoon counts as a separate unit durring DoW. Does not this go against the RAW in the IG codex?







]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491703.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491703.page GMT FAQ. At a glance, I take issue with one response that has not yet been addressed:

WH.18.01B (pg 73)

Your "clarification" is a rules change because your definition of "affected" is overly restrictive. For example, shield of faith can be used to nullify the Eldar power doom, but your rules don't allow for this.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491736.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491736.page GMT
Here's the deal. Although I still don't have time to address all the concerns that have been brought up yet (damn family time once a year, right? ) I am jumping in to say this (and thanks to Centurian99 for heading off some of the feedback):


This thread is for feedback for the FAQ, not particularly to argue about the semantics of the rules (although some of that is certainly warranted). Instead, if you'd like to argue about the rules you can always start another thread on the topic in the YMTC forum.

If you've got a concern regarding the FAQ post your concern in a concise and clear way and then move on, posts simply arguing over the rules [b]will be deleted to keep the thread manageable[/b] (you've been warned).


Unfortunately I don't have the time to delete many of these posts and to stop people from arguing, so before the thread turns completely unwieldy, I'm going to lock it down for a day or so.

If you've got more feedback for the FAQ, take the day to plan out your thoughts, after the thread opens back up please post it in this thread.



Thanks again.


[i][color=red]Edit: Okay, this thread is now being reopened so we can continue to get quality feedback on issues that need to be addressed/changed. I have deleted many threads arguing about the 'ramming' issue as whether or not the rules support this concept is something that has already been argued and decided upon by the members of the council. In all cases, our rulings do not make something 'right' or 'correct' but rather represent the consensus of the group (as we *do* have to make rulings to put in the FAQ ultimately).

So if you disagree with our ruling that's perfectly fine and please feel free to make a post explaining why you do (in fact, that's what we want!), but [b]do not[/b] turn the thread into an argument about what you personally think the rules actually say. . .in other words, don't respond to other people's comments.

Thanks again, and I hope everyone is having a lovely holiday season.[/color][/i]

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491744.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/491744.page GMT

[quote=shabbadoo]

[i][b]ORK.55D.01 – Q: Does a Deff Rolla affect enemy
vehicles that are rammed? If so, what about
Skimmers that manage to dodge the ram?

A: Enemy vehicles that are rammed do take an additional D6
S10 hits from the Deff Rolla. A skimmer that successfully
dodges the ram does not [clarification].[/b][/i]

Tank Shocking only works vs. non-vehicles. Ramming only works against vehicles. The effects of the deff rolla only work when Tank Shocking things(RAW). They crush people, not vehicles. If it can't be Tank Shocked then it can't be affected by a deff rolla whatsoever; ergo vehicles are not affected by a deff rolla at all. Basically, if something can be run over by the deff rolla(i.e. Tank Shocked), then it suffers all of the effects of the deff rolla. It's simply best to disabuse anybody of the notion that they can Ram Titans with deff rollas and do 2d6 Str 10 hits to them(as that would be going full retard, and some tournament players just don't need any help in this area.). The problem here is obvious.

Also, the author of the Ork codex stated in an interview/Q&A session that Trukks cannot Ram as they are not substantial enough to Ram anything, and will in effect explode into bits upon contact(ref. "The Road Warrior"- Humongous vs. semi ), even if they have a ram bar. Trukks can run over people(i.e. Tank Shock) but not Ram. That leaves only Tanks able to ram, as per the rules. Non-Tanks cannot Ram(RAW).[/quote]


On Ramming vs. Tank Shocking (and the Ork death-rolla implications):

We fully understand that there are essentially two different ways to interpret this rules issue, one being that ramming is a 'sub-sect' of tank-shock (an idea which allows a death-rolla to be used when ramming), while the other concept is that ramming is a specialized version of tank-shock that is still ultimately a different enough thing that it has to be specifically mentioned in a rule to be allowed.

The ruling council of 9 members came to the near-unanimous conclusion that we felt the rules supported the first concept more. As with all of our rulings, we are not saying this is 'correct' or 'right' but is just the collective opinion of the group trying to come to some sort of consensus for the FAQ.

GW may indeed rule the opposite way if they ever address it in a FQ (and in many ways I would welcome this ruling), but based on the rules we currently have that is the opinion that we have come to.

Of course, as with any feedback we receive on a ruling, we will revisit it again when we revise the FAQ in a few weeks and argue it out again and see if any council members have changed their minds on the topic.


[quote=Zubb]Overall - a nice FAQ.

But, where did you find the [RAW] for considering Staff of Ulthramar a double-handed weapon?[/quote]


The Staff of Ultramar is not defined as being a single-handed weapon so it isn't one. See 'RB.37A.01' (pg 8 of the FAQ) for more details. I'll make sure to add that reference number in the next release.

[quote=LPetersson]

Impressive work

I have a couple of comments on the Space wolf section:

[i]SW.06A.02 – Q: Does ‘Storm Caller’ really allow the unit to ‘strike first’ in close combat?
A: No, when assaulted the unit simply counts as being in cover. This means any charging enemies who direct any of their attacks towards models protected by Storm Caller counts as having assaulted through cover. Ignore this rule if the protected models were already locked in combat from a previous turn when charged. A unit protected by Storm Caller that assaults an enemy through cover still strikes at their regular Initiative [clarification].[/i]

It's worth clarifying this so it says that it's only when attacking through cover that combat is resolved in order of initiative.
When assaulting a unit that's not in cover a unit protected by Storm Caller would strike first (Except for attacks with I1 of course).[/quote]


Isn't that exactly what our ruling says? "A unit protected by Storm Caller that assaults an enemy [b]through cover[/b] still strikes at their regular Initiative".


[quote][i]SW.10A.03 – Q: Do Blood Claw that Counter-Attack get a +2 Attack bonus because of ‘Berserk Charge’?
A: No, just the normal +1 Attack bonus [clarification].[/i]

The Big Rulebook clearly states on page 74 '[b]exactly as if they too had assaulted[/b]' so yes, BCs do get +2 attacks - RAW
Same again for BCs on bikes and for Ragnar Blackmane.
How did you come to the conclusion that they only get +1A?[/quote]


On the Blood Claws headstrong issue, I think that you guys are pretty much correct on this and we will most likely reverse this ruling in the next iteration of the FAQ.

[quote][i]SW.15N.01 – Q: Can a model with a Wolf Tooth Necklace ignore persistent psychic abilities like Veil of Tears, Conceal, The Horror, etc?
A: Yes, the psychic ability still functions, however the model with the Necklace is able to ignore any an all effects of the ability [RAW].[/i]

You're getting Wolf Tooth Necklace and Wolf Tail Talisman mixed up here and in the next couple of questions.
[/quote]


Thanks for that. I'll get that wording cleaned up in the next iteration.


[quote=Grey Mage]I have a few questions and comments:

Pg. 43- Your comments on Howling banshees is vague, and doesnt mention anything as per their possible use of the acrobatic exarch power. This should probly be addressed.[/quote]


What exactly is the issue with Acrobatic that you're concerned about?


[quote]Pg. 8- Your comments on weapons that are no classified as single handed weapons or close combat weapons, would this be the basis for your decision on the staff of ultramar? Also, what is your basis for this assesment?[/quote]


Yes, that is the basis for the ruling. And that idea is: If a weapon is not classified as being a single-handed weapon then it does not give a bonus in combat for being single-handed. This seems to be the way that GW is handling things in the game now. Weapon are just weapons, but some of them are defined as being single-handed and those particular weapons give a bonus in CC.


[quote]Pg. 9- What is the interpretation of this in conjunction with the Space Wolf Chooser of the Slain. Id infer that it doesnt give you an additional power fist attack as it doesnt specificy however at the time the codex was written this rule hadnt even been dreampt of.[/quote]


I think you're referring to RB.42O.01? If so, Chooser of the Slain does not just provide +1 Attack, but rather it provides +1 Attack for having a 2nd close combat weapon. As such it would not function along with a powerfist. In other words, it is slightly different from the rules referenced in that question, but it may indeed be worth including a separate FAQ question for it.


[quote]Pg. 64- Why is "Old and Wise" not usuable on a roll to seize the iniative? This roll directly pertains as to who goes first.[/quote]

Because in our opinion, rolling to go first is something different than rolling to seize the initiative, even though that 2nd roll does result in the player going first.


[quote=Saldiven]A couple of things I noticed about the DE section of the FAQ.

For the DE poisoned blades and scissor hands, you reference the poisoned weapons rule from the main rule book. Does this mean that the DE poisoned weapons are no longer more potent than other races', or do they still wound on 2+ as per the codex?[/quote]

The rules for poisoned weapons in the rulebook clearly states that they can wound a variety of different ways (4+ or 2+). So the DE weapons that say they wound on a 2+ do exactly that.


[quote]Also, I believe that the clarification in the DE FAQ for the Xenospasm refers to the fact that a single unit could have an IC armed with a Xenospasm and an upgrade character armed with a Terrorfex; if both were fired at the same unit, the negative modifiers to the Pinning test should be cumulative for both.[/quote]

The FAQ specifically references having more than one Xenospasm, which is categorically impossible. We'll check on the Terrorfex plus Xenospasm combo idea and add it into that ruling in the next iteration if appropriate.


[quote=Redbeard][quote]
RB.67F.01 – Q: When a transport vehicle suffers a ‘Destroyed – explodes!’ result its passengers must be placed “where the vehicle used to be”. What exactly does this mean?

A: Passengers must be placed wholly inside the area of the table that the vehicle’s hull previously occupied. Any models that cannot fit entirely within this area or are within 1” of an enemy model are removed from play as a casualty. In addition, the models count as having disembarked from a vehicle (and so cannot assault the same turn if the vehicle wasn’t open-topped, for example) [rules change].
[/quote]

This is fairly harsh for a self-described Rules Change. There's nothing in the rules that indicates that models get auto-removed if they don't fit. Can you fit 20 bases within the footprint of the new official ork battlewagon model? If not, I think this is a very poor decision. Can you fit 10 bases within the footprint of a rhino? Or 12 within a chimera? And, if you can fit all the transportable models within the footprint of every relevant transport model, what's the point of making a case for models that don't fit?[/quote]


The rules are absolutely unclear here. What exactly is meant by having to place the models "where the vehicle used to be"? Nobody knows for certain so we've had to come up with a definition based on what we think the rule is trying to say.

As for models dying if they can't be placed in the prescribed area, if not ruled this way all of a sudden you have several bizarre situations, such as disembarking models being placed within 1" of enemy models, for example. And if you say that models can be placed outside of the area where the "vehicle used to be", if and only if the unit is too big to fit there, then we have to come up with all sorts of guidelines of exactly when and how this is allowed to be done.

The ruling we have made in our opinions does the best job of following what the rules say (placing the models where the vehicle used to be) and sticking to the normal conventions of disembarking: If you don't have the space to place the models then those models count as being destroyed.

Obviously in a few situations (20 Orks in a battlewagon) that can lead to some situations where a few Orks are lost, but the reality is, once the Orks have finished suffering their casualties from the exploded Battlewagon in most cases you should be able to fit all the survivors within the Battlewagon's 'footprint'.


[quote][quote]
the same movement phase it moves ‘flat out’ (by ramming another vehicle, for example) are the models onboard destroyed?

A: No, in this case all models onboard count as being destroyed [clarification].
[/quote]

That doesn't make sense. The question asks are the models destroyed. The answer says No, they count as being destroyed. If you say 'No', doesn't that mean they're not destroyed? [/quote]


Yep, that's an error that occurred when the ruling was changed mid-stream. Thanks, we'll get that corrected.


[quote][quote]
[For drop pods that are unable to open] both players can agree before the game to either pretend, to the best of their abilities, that the doors are open and both players can see ‘through’ the core for line of sight purposes, or they can agree to play that the model blocks line of sight ‘as is’
[/quote]

What if the two players cannot agree? Is there a default behaviour?[/quote]


As with all rules, if two players can't come to an agreement they will have to randomly come to a conclusion (i.e. D6 it).


[quote][quote]
BT.29A.01 – Q: Do Black Templar models in Terminator Armor always count as stationary when shooting a rapid fire weapon? Can they assault the same turn they shoot a rapid fire or heavy weapon?

A: They may assault the same turn they shoot with rapid fire or heavy weapons [rules change]. They do not, however always count as stationary when shooting a rapid fire weapon (just with heavy weapons) [RAW].
[/quote]

This is just weird. Why have a rules change for half of this, but not the other half? It seems counter-intuitive. Couldn't you just [rules change] both aspects of the question to simplify this?[/quote]


Because we're following the RAW here. If we started to make all marine codices behave the same, this quickly starts a slippery slope that has no definable edge (and goes against what GW has ruled in their FAQs already).

As bizarre as it may be to some, different Chapters have slightly different rules regarding how their Terminator armor (among other things) behaves.




[quote=Salvation122]I don't have my books to hand, as I'm out of town, but aren't Spore Mines [i]mindless,[/i] specifically barring them from holding objectives?

I'd also disagree with spore mines granting kill points - they're effectively the same thing as the Scout Biker booby traps, except they float around. They're bullets, not infantry.[/quote]


Yes, many things in the game are not allowed to hold objectives, but this is an entirely different concept from simply preventing an enemy scoring unit from claiming an objective by being within 3".

Spore Mine clusters are most definitely a unit. While we could have ruled that they don't give up a Kill Point, the reality is that up until now GW has yet to rule that [b]ANY[/b] unit is immune from giving up Kill Points. So if we start ruling that some units don't do so we would essentially be making a major change in the game that doesn't exist up until this point. And once you start making that ruling, where exactly does it stop? Do Tau vehicle drones not count as a Kill Point? How about Chronus popping out of a destroyed vehicle? Etc, etc, etc.

In the end (after much, much, much discussion) we decided that if a unit is on the table at any point (i.e. it can contest an objective in an objective-based game) then it also needs to be worth a Kill Point when destroyed.


. . .


More responses to come in the next few days (hopefully!).


]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/492864.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/492864.page GMT SW.10A.03 space wolves and berserk charge

I disagree fully with the space wolves counterattack issue that people are saying. (by this i mean in Yakface's most recent post of reversing the ruling) I believe that they had it right in the first place. and you get +1 attack only

It states "...all models in the unit get the +1 assault bonus to their attacks, exactly as if they too had assaulted that turn."

now I understand that it says exactly as if they too had assaulted, and I understand that berserk charge says they get +2 attacks when they charge but there are 3 problems I see with this.

1. If you allow 2 attacks from blood claws, then logically you have to allow furious charge and a chaplain rerolling hits and everything else that gets a benefit from charging. (which I believe is thoroughly wrong)

2.The unit is not charging. It is [i]counterattacking[/i], so any bonus applied to when you charge is not granted. It spells out in the rule what you get when you counter charge

3. I believe that the reference the rule makes is to p37 of the main rule book where it discusses the various bonus to attacks.

It states on p37 that " +1 Assault bonus: Engaged models who assaulted this turn get the +1 attack." now under counter attack it says that the unit gets the +1 assault bonus, exactly as if they had charged this turn. so I believe that it is directly referencing this rule governing how you get more attacks in combat.

It is my belief that counterattack does not bestow any "charging bonus" to the unit making the attack, since the rule directly refers to the +1 assault bonus on p37.

I also believe that counterattack is worded like that because if you take out the part about exactly as if they had charged, then you could make the argument that they don't get +1 attack since they didn't charge. Which explains why they worded it like they did. If they meant for you to get the charging bonus don't you think they would have said "and this unit counts as charging?" (but that's just supposition not actually fact)

On a final note, I do not believe that blood claws get +2 attacks since it states under beserk charge that they get +2 attacks when they charge, and the unit is definately not charging, it is Counter Attacking.

if this is not an appropriate response in this thread could a mod please move it thank you]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/492929.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/492929.page GMT FAQs", Games workshop no longer produces official FAQ's.
[quote]The Errata have the same level of 'authority' as the main rules, as they effectively modify the published material. They are 'hard' material. It is a good idea to read them and be aware of their existence, but luckily there are very few of them for each book.

The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'. They are, of course, useful when you play a pick-up game against someone you don't know, or at tournaments (i.e. when you don't have a set of common 'house rules' with the other player). However, if you disagree with some answers and prefer to change them in your games and make your own house rules with your friends, that's fine. In fact we encourage you to shape the game around your needs and your taste. We firmly believe that wargaming is about two (or more!) people creating a gaming experience they are both going to enjoy. In other words, you might prefer to skip the FAQs altogether and instead always apply the good old 'roll a dice' rule whenever you meet a problematic situation.

- Games Development, November 2008[/quote]

By my reckoning that makes both documents of equal standing.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/492986.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/492986.page GMT RAW sais this but you would prefer GW made a FAQ that rules it othervise(The ramming issue) but on the other hand you bring up rules that you change cause it makes the game more fun or better, sounds like double standards to me.

It also sounds like your pushing for orks.. either by saing its RAW or that its for the good of the game.

Lastyly, does this game really take a FAQ thats larger then the rulebook with changes (clarifications are good, pure rule changes are bad imo)? Doesnt this make it a whole diffrent game.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/493381.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/493381.page GMT FAQ in a few weeks and argue it out again and see if any council members have changed their minds on the topic.[/quote]

I get ya. Just gonna throw in one last bit for your discussion team then. Ask everyone to consider whether or not they think that a 20 point deff rolla should be doing what is in effect d6 auto-hitting Rail Gun shots to any vehicle(Baneblades and Titans included; skimmers dodge on a 4+) it so happens to perform a Ramming attack upon, and it can potentially do this to more than one target in a single turn. To me that is really the big indicator of rule intention, which is solved if one treats Tank Shock and Ramming as the separate rules that they are, as they affect two very diferent target types(and the deff rolla rules only apply to Tank Shock). Don't get me wrong. I play Orks, but this is just foul.

And for doing this whole FAQ, somebody better be buying you guys a round of drinks or three at Adepticon!!! ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/494118.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/494118.page GMT I do not believe that blood claws get +2 attacks since it states under beserk charge that they get +2 attacks when they charge, and the unit is definately not charging, it is Counter Attacking.
[/quote]
I think you're going to find that no amount of tap-dancing is going to get around the word "exactly."]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/494149.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/494149.page GMT ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/494167.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/494167.page GMT
Here's some more responses to feedback. Thanks again for it all, it continues to be very useful and will result in a better FAQ in the end.

[quote=don_mondo]Alrighty then, here we go.

RB.45C.01 I'll just disagree and say that one step away from your table edge is doubling back. So your call is (IMO) a Rules Change, not a clarification.[/quote]


The term 'doubling back' means different things to different people. Some view it, like you, as going in the same [i]direction[/i] that you traveled from, while others view it as moving over the same path they traveled from, the latter of which is how we have ruled. As such, I do believe it is a solid [clarification] because there is no clear-cut rule in this case.


[quote=don_mondo]RB.63F.01 and 02 I agree with no pile-in/consolidate towards the non-WS vehicle, but why would they have to move 1" away from the non-WS vehicle? Rules do not require that, and as long as they meet all other requirements on the pile-in, why do they have to move away from the non-WS vehicle? I'd say that no additional models my contact the vehicle, but 5th ed rules do allow you to stay in contact with the vehicle.[/quote]


The rules do not require a model that is in base contact with an enemy unit after the assault is over to move away from it, so if you choose to leave the model standing where he is, he can remain in base contact with the vehicle. However, if you [i]choose[/i] to move a model with a consolidation move, then following the rules for a consolidation moves, the model must then be kept 1" away from all enemy models.

[quote=don_mondo]RB.67A.02 Hmmm, what about Emergency Disembarkation?

RB.70H.01 Again, what about Emergency Disembarkation?[/quote]

Emergency Disembarkation only applies (as written in the rules) when models cannot disembark because of the proximity of enemy models or impassable terrain, not for any other reason.

[quote=don_mondo]RB.69B.01 Disagree. Only tanks can Ram, the ability to Tank Shock has no bearing.

ORK.55D.01 I'll just say I disagree and leave it at that

Ork.93H.01 As already stated, only Tanks can Ram, ability to Tank Shock does not confer the ability to Ram[/quote]


As I've mentioned before in regards to feedback regarding this issue, I definitely see your point of view and we'll discuss it again for the final version of the FAQ and see if the consensus has changed.

[quote=don_mondo]DH.31A.01 Spelling error, threat should be treat...........[/quote]

Thank you much.

[quote=don_mondo]Possible question, can Inquisitors (psykers) be allied with Black Templars, as long as they take no psychic powers?[/quote]

Per the GW FAQ, Inquisitors count as psykers even if they don't take any powers, so the answer is (clearly, I think) no.

[quote=don_mondo]Possible question, Are Ravenwing Landspeeders from a Ravenwing Attack squadron a scoring unit, ie able to control an objective?[/quote]

DA.27C.01 - We've ruled that they do not count as a scoring unit.

[quote=don_mondo]ELD.35G.01 No, Intercept cannot be used on Walkers. Intercept ability may only be used on vehicles that do not have a WS, per the Eldar FAQ.[/quote]

Thanks for the catch. We'll get it changed.

[quote]Possible question. Does or can Eldrad receive +1 attack if he chooses to use sword and pistol, or does the two special weapons rule take precedence? Same thing for Calgar and his fists/power sword?[/quote]

This is definitely an issue that needs to be addressed. Probably it will be added to the rulebook section for special close combat weapons.

[quote=don_mondo]IG.47.01 Hmmmmm, aren't codex versions of a USR supposed to supercede main rulbook versions? So the IG Sentinel should use the codex version which includes teh may always deploy bit, right?[/quote]

IG.38.01 Might clarify that some units can deploy normally while others can infitrate, and that a senitnel squadron can always be deployed (see IG.47.01 comment) regardless of what the rest of the platoon does.[/quote]


I don't have the IG codex on me currently to be able to respond fully, but I recall there being some issues with the codex wording of their 'Scout' rule that made it difficult (if not impossible) to apply in a logical manner which is why it was ruled to go ahead and use the rulebook version in this particular case. But we'll definitely take a 2nd look at it and see if it should indeed be ruled something closer to the codex wording.

[quote=don_mondo]NEC.21E.02 Earlier stated that special forms of movement could only be used (while falling back) if it moved the unit closer to their board edge. Why isn't that qualifier present here? [/quote]

Traveling through a Monolith portal is something the Monolith actually initiates and can actually be done regardless of whether the unit has already moved or not. This is different from other powers that 'teleport' units (like Veil of Death or Gate of Infinity) in that those replace a unit's normal movement.

[quote=don_mondo]Might want to address WBB vs Sweeping Advance[/quote]

The rulebook is pretty explicit that no special rule can save models from being cut down by a sweeping advance.

[quote=don_mondo]SM.57H.02 Falling back, why not? As long as it takes them closer to their board edge? Yes, I realize this might be used to get them over 6" away from a unit escorting them off the table.[/quote]

Because the unit is forced to make a fall back move and they have the [i]option[/i] to be 'Gated'. Therefore, they must follow the mandatory rules. This is entirely consistent with how GW ruled Veil of Darkness, for example.

[quote=don_mondo]SM.73A.01 Techmarine is an IC with a unit, why doesn't he give up a separate kill point from the unit? [/quote]

He only ever becomes an IC if the cannon is destroyed, so after lots of discussion we finally decided that this does not qualify as a 'retinue' situation.

[quote=don_mondo]SW.GEN.01 Might want to add Landspeeder Storm to the list[/quote]

Definitely, thanks.

[quote=don_mondo]SW.15G.01/RB.48A.02 Seems like the same question, but different answers...............[/quote]


Yes, we need to add into the space wolf ruling that they are allowed to come within 2" of a unit they cannot join, so thanks!


[quote=spaceman spiff]
[quote]RB.41C - ATTACKING
In Multiple Combats, when it is time for a model to attack, the following extra rules apply:

Models that were engaged with just one of the enemy units at the beginning of the combat (before any model attacked) must attack that unit.

Models that were engaged with more than one enemy unit at the beginning of the combat (before any model attacked) may split their attacks freely between those units. Declare how they are splitting their attacks immediately before rolling to hit.[/quote]

I believe what you are trying to say here is that this rule applies in a model by model situation not in a unit by unit situation as you believe it is currently and generally believed.

Secondly, under your ruling, I am having a hard time understanding the situation that would force the attacking model to trigger this rule and only get to attack a model from an enemy unit that it was engaged with previous to the defined 'beginning of combat'

Again descriptions to support this FAQ would be welcome[/quote]


The situation this applies to is as follows:

You have unit A locked in combat with unit B from a previous round of combat. Unit C then charges into combat against unit A (in order to support unit B). Can models in unit A that are engaged with this new foe (unit C) direct their attacks against them?

Our ruling clarifies that the answer to this is 'yes they can attack Unit C' because the rule you have quoted says that models declare where their attacks are being directed at "the beginning of combat". If you look at page 33 of the rulebook you will see that the beginning of combat is actually 'step 3' of the Assault phase, after all assaulting units have been moved and all defenders have reacted.

Now, as for why GW even has this rule in the rulebook, the answer is found in their own FAQ which states that models which are in BASE CONTACT with a unit at the start of a combat (after assaulters and defenders have moved) must direct their attacks against THAT enemy unit. This means that, if before a model gets to strike, the enemy he was in base contact with is killed, he still has to direct his attacks at the unit he was in base contact with at the start of the combat, as opposed to being allowed to switch his attacks over to another enemy unit that he is engaged with (but not in base contact with).

[quote=Foda_Bett]I've got one issue with this FAQ:
BA.06DD.01 – Q: Do Blood Angels models in
Terminator Armor always count as stationary when
shooting a rapid fire weapon?
A: No they do not [RAW]

WHAT?! I'm sorry but this just seems like shoddy GW copy pasting, and not a RAW thing.

I've got one you can add as well.
Could you please clarify what the "Sever the head and destroy the body" asset is from Apocalypse reload? It is given by a marine datasheet but is not actually in the assets section of Apocalypse or Reload. Most places play it as "Trophy Kill."[/quote]


As I've mentioned before, GW has been pretty consistent about maintaining the fact that each codex's rules are separate from any other codex. Once you start to try to combine the abilities of one similar codex to another it quickly becomes a slippery slope of exactly what things do you allow and what things do you deny? As such, we decided to go with the stricter [RAW] ruling in these circumstances.

[quote=spaceman spiff]You are reaching here with this one:

[quote]RB.67A.02 – Q: If a unit embarks on a transport and
in the same movement phase the transport is
‘Destroyed’ (by ramming another vehicle, for
example) are the models onboard allowed to
disembark?
A: No, in this case all models onboard count as being
destroyed [clarification].
Ref: RB.70H.01[/quote]

You need to clarify that this applies to only passengers of a fast moving vehicle (as you cite in your rules reference). As otherwise this clearly contradicts the RAW on page 67 for passengers of vehicle that is not moving fast.[/quote]


You are correct, this is an issue we will be looking into because it is clearly inconsistent with the rules. It was one of the last rulings that was discussed/changed and clearly we didn't double-check all the wording in the rules when the ruling was reversed to how it was printed.

[quote=Darkwynn]APOC.91C.02 – Q: Since Gargantuan Creatures’ close
combat attacks against vehicles count as Ordnance,
do they get to roll 2D6 and pick the highest result for
each hit?
A: No, their Attacks only count as Ordnance when rolling on
the Vehicle Damage table, not when rolling for Armor
Penetration [RAW].


yakface but doesn't ordnance in 5th edition not give any bonus to the damage chart? Doesn't that mean that the Gargantuan creature would only be for Armour penetration rolls then? more clarification on this would be appreciated.[/quote]

Good catch, you are correct. This will be addressed.

[quote=skyth]I second the 'Why do spore mines give kps?'

It's idiotic that if I biovore misses, it gives the enemy a kp...

Also, spawn that are created from the enemy should not give out KP's...

Both of these fall under the [Rules Change] dealing with absurd rules...[/quote]


As I mentioned before, currently there are absolutely NO units in the game that GW has ruled do not give up Kill Points, so making this kind of ruling would be a pretty big change in the game especially considering that there isn't any good reason that these units can't contest enemy objectives in objective-based missions.

And that was really the rule of thumb we tried to work with: If the unit is on the table and can contest an enemy unit in an objective-based mission then for consistency it needs to give up a Kill Point in Annihilation missions.


Thanks again everyone. . .more responses to follow. . .



]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/497103.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/497103.page GMT RB.37C.01 – Q: If a unit being attacked in close
combat has one engaged model with WS5, two
engaged models with WS4 and three engaged models
with WS3 what Weapon Skill value is used for attacks
against them?
A: As there is no majority WS (more than half of the
engaged models in the unit), the unit uses the WS of 5 when
attacked [RAW].


I feel that this is very wrong as there is a clear majority in ws. 3 is more than 2 and 3 is also more than 1 which is a majority.

the majority of models engaged in this fight have ws 3 so the unit would use their ws of 3 when attacked]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/497126.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/497126.page GMT
Per the GW FAQ, Inquisitors count as psykers even if they don't take any powers, so the answer is (clearly, I think) no.[/quote]

Black Templars aren't prohibited from allying with Psykers... just models with Psychic [i]powers[/i].

An Inquisitor with no Psychic powers has no Psychic powers. Whether or not he is a Psyker is irrelevant.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/497130.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/497130.page GMT ws 3 [/quote]

No, [i]half[/i] of the models in this fight have WS3.

It would only be a majority if there were more models with WS3 than other models.

A majority is more than half of the entire group, not just a sub-group that is larger than any other sub-group.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/497134.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/497134.page GMT Okay, final batch of responses to the (current) feedback from this thread. Then I'll be moving onto the thread in the YMTC forum to try to give some responses there. . .

[quote=don_mondo]SM.73A.01 Techmarine. OK, he's not an IC until the cannon is destroyed. So? Neither are my IG Officers, yet they give up a KP regardless of when or how they die. I think I see where you're getting it, the TF cannon isn't a retinue as per the Annihilation rules. So does the sequence in which they die change the situation? This applies (IMO) to gun drones etc as well. Sequence of death should not matter, all that matters is that the model(s) can become an IC or separate unit. Or does a unit that is wiped on while attempting to disembark from a destroyed vehicle not give up a kill point (as per the gun drones answer)?[/quote]


The truth is, there is no simple answer for ruling on Kill Points. There just isn't enough information provided in the rules for Kill Points to cover some of the bizarre situations that exist in the game. As soon as you think there is one blanket concept that covers everything, once you start to apply it you quickly find that it makes other situations ridiculous.

We decided that Kill Points aren't Victory Points in that they don't apply just to units that are purchased from your army list. Instead, they are rewarded whenever a unit is destroyed in the game. So the question ultimately becomes: When does a unit become a unit in the case of units that are essentially 'created' in the middle of the game?

If Gun Drones never leave their vehicle, they are never a separate unit. If a Biovore never creates a Spore Mine cluster, that Spore Mine cluster never becomes a unit in the game, etc. So we have ruled that if something never becomes a unit in the game then there simply is no way it can possibly give up a Kill Point for being destroyed. This absolutely doesn't apply to a standard unit being carried in a transport because they are most certainly still a separate unit, as opposed to Tau Gun Drones which [i]become[/i] a separate unit [b]only[/b] when (if) their vehicle is destroyed.


[quote=Thanatos_elNyx]Thanks for this I like the ruling on intermingling units.

Just another question though:
On RB.22A.02: I was under the impression that waving arms don't count as part of the model for being shot at, so why would it be counted when checking to see if you could shoot over said model?[/quote]


Because you have to use the 'true' line of sight when attempting to draw line of sight past enemy models. Yes, the rules require you to draw LOS to the 'body' of a model you are [b]firing at[/b], but that is only for models you are targeting. In all other cases (such as drawing LOS past an intervening model) you use true line of sight which means that, yes all parts of an intervening model count. But remember, on the first page of the FAQ we are very specific that players cannot convert their models specifically to gain a game advantage.

[quote=Thanatos_elNyx]And a question: Is a Relic Blade a two-handed weapon and can it be combined with a Shield.[/quote]

Yes, there is no rule preventing these two items from being used on the same model.

[quote=Zubb]Also want a calrification - is power lance treated as ccw in a round model doesnot provoke an assault? It is Important for Autarch.[/quote]


I will definitely look into seeing if this warrants being included in the final FAQ.

[quote=chromedog]p25, BA25A.01
Q: How is the Whirlwind Launcher
mounted and can it fire both ‘Vengeance’ and
‘Incendiary Castellan’ missiles in the same game?
A: Yes [clarification].

I take it 'YES' is to whether it can fire both types during a game. The type of mounting, however (first part of question) is not covered. Is it a turret or (fixed) Hull-mount.[/quote]

Thanks, I'll get that fixed in the final version (it is turret-mounted).

[quote=ubermosher]SM142: Land Raider Multi-Melta is hull mounted? Every kit I've seen has it mounted on the exact same cupola as the pintle storm-bolter. I would think it would be pintle mounted as well.[/quote]


IIRC (don't have all my codexes on me), other marine codexes (like Templars) list the multi-melta as hull-mounted so we were simply using that as our basis. I'll double-check on that for the final version of the FAQ though.

[quote=dancingcricket]CD.52D.01 - I'm curious as to how you got from RAW (All attacks from followers of Nurgle ignore armour saves!) to not include all attacks? I'm pretty sure that someone shooting at you is an attack, and not a display of affection or a marraige proposal...[/quote]


It is listed as a [clarification] not [RAW]. All of Epidemus's gifts up until the final one are most certainly CC based, and the term 'attacks' is both a very general word and a game term for a models close combat 'Attacks' (such as in their profile). GW has in the past made the same mistake of using the term 'Attacks' in a rule that pretty clearly didn't make sense when applied to 'ranged attacks' (the Tzeentch Gargoyle upgrade in the previous CSM codex, for example).

As such, we've made the ruling that this reference to 'Attacks' is indeed referring to the more strict game definition of close combat 'attacks'. Although, I do agree that this probably should be re-categorized as a [rules change].

[quote=BoxANT][quote]IG.GEN.02 – Q: When models are part of a Heavy
Weapon team do either of them have a Lasgun?
A: Both models have a lasgun and either may fire the
heavy weapon (but not both at the same time) while the
other model fires his lasgun [RAW]. [/quote]

So am I correct in reading this in that if the HW team moves, both can fire their lasguns? [/quote]

Yes. But remember that if you are going to play this way you'll need to have lasguns modeled on each of your Heavy Weapon trooper models.



[quote=BoxANT][quote]IG.44.01 – Q: Can individual units of an Infantry
Platoon be held in Reserve?
A: Individual units of an Infantry Platoon may be held in
Reserve while others are deployed normally. When rolling for
Reserves, only a single roll is made for all elements of the
Infantry Platoon that are in Reserve. In ‘Dawn of War’
missions, each unit in the Platoon counts as a separate unit
for how many units may be deployed [clarification]. [/quote]
You say that each squad in an infantry platoon counts as a separate unit durring DoW. Does not this go against the RAW in the IG codex?[/quote]


Nope. Unlike the Command Platoon, which says it is deployed as a single unit, the standard Infantry Platoon only says they all count as a single force organization choice. Page 92 of the rulebook ("Multiple Unit Choices") explains that this alone does make the entire platoon deploy as a single unit.


[quote=shirou]Nice FAQ. At a glance, I take issue with one response that has not yet been addressed:

WH.18.01B (pg 73)

Your "clarification" is a rules change because your definition of "affected" is overly restrictive. For example, shield of faith can be used to nullify the Eldar power doom, but your rules don't allow for this.[/quote]

I will double-check to see if 'Doom' should be included. But this really falls into the incredibly grey area of when a unit is actually 'affected' by a power, and the truth is there isn't one easy answer which means this will always be a [clarification] rather than a [rules change].


[quote=Kallbrand]
Lastyly, does this game really take a FAQ thats larger then the rulebook with changes (clarifications are good, pure rule changes are bad imo)? Doesnt this make it a whole diffrent game.[/quote]


Please remember that this FAQ is only used to solve disputes in games. If both players naturally play the game a certain way, a FAQ ruling isn't going to even come up. Or if both players hate a particular FAQ ruling they will, of course, just ignore that ruling for their game. The ONLY time a FAQ ruling comes into play is when you have two players who disagree on a rule. WHEN (and only when) this happens, the FAQ becomes a guide for both players and judges so that everyone can know what the ruling should be, instead of just leaving the ruling up to a random opinion from a random judge that can never possibly be consistent across an entire tournament filled with multiple judges.

And as for this FAQ somehow 'changing the game' the fact remains, that there is no one true way to play the game that everyone agrees upon. The reality is that each person interprets the rules as written based on their own understanding of language. The truth is, a lot of what is labeled a [rules change] in the FAQ are issues that many people simply take for granted [b]as the RAW[/b] already.

Despite what some people may think, we have no desire to change 40K or force people to play a certain way. I'm personally happy playing any way my opponent wants to play on nearly any issue. The FAQ is only ever designed to be a tool to help give consistent rulings at a tournament between palyers who have a [b]DISPUTE[/b]. As I've said before, players who see eye-to-eye on the rules are going to play how they want to play regardless of what any FAQ says.

In my opinion, for those players who do have a rules dispute it is [b]always[/b] better to try to create a situation where a consistent ruling is provided as opposed to just leaving every judge out on a limb to wing things as best they can. And that is the only goal of the FAQ: to help resolve disputes consistently.


Thanks once again for all the feedback.





]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/497210.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/497210.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/497233.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/497233.page GMT
What's happening when you try?

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/497334.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/497334.page GMT [quote=shirou]Nice FAQ. At a glance, I take issue with one response that has not yet been addressed:

WH.18.01B (pg 73)

Your "clarification" is a rules change because your definition of "affected" is overly restrictive. For example, shield of faith can be used to nullify the Eldar power doom, but your rules don't allow for this.[/quote]

I will double-check to see if 'Doom' should be included. But this really falls into the incredibly grey area of when a unit is actually 'affected' by a power, and the truth is there isn't one easy answer which means this will always be a [clarification] rather than a [rules change].

[/quote]

I looked at the FAQ again, and upon rereading, it seems like the list provided in the FAQ is intended to define "area of effect." Shield of faith may be used by units that are targeted by or included in an area of effect of a psychic power. Since Doom explicitly targets a unit, I think it is clear that Doom can be nullified with Shield of Faith, and that the FAQ does not prohibit this because it is only defining what constitutes an "area of effect."

However, I think my original point -- that the wording is overly restrictive -- still stands. Doom is simply not a good example because it does not have an area of effect. I'll suggest Null Zone instead. Null Zone has a clear area of effect (a circle with 24" radius centered on the librarian), and a sororitas unit inside the area of effect would be affected.

I don't think it is a gray area about whether or not a sororitas unit is "affected" by Null Zone. While it is true that "affected" may not be clearly defined by GW as a game term, it does have a clear meaning in the English dictionary, and by that definition the sororitas unit is affected.

(I am cross-posting this to the other thread about the same topic as it is now rather unclear to me where I should be posting this comment.)]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/497555.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/497555.page GMT
I don't believe that to be right at all and since toughness and ws are both worded the same way...

I don't believe majority is referring to each type vs the unit. (3 vs 6, 1 vs 6, 2 vs 6) I'd bet that majority is a reference to the other types in the unit,
ie 3 vs 1 vs 1 in which case you would treat the above example as toughness 4 not 5 since it makes more sense that bullets would hit more T4 guys than anybody else, since there are more of them than either other type. Otherwise you have one T5 model running around the whole unit catching all the bullets and that seems silly.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/497574.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/497574.page GMT
It's not an argument based on logic. It's an argument based on the meaning of the word 'Majority'


[quote]you're telling me that a unit of 2 inquisitors 1 space marine captain on a bike, and 3 techmarines on foot form a unit when I shoot at them I count the unit as toughness 5???[/quote]

Given the current rules for Mixed Toughness units, that is indeed correct.

Unlikely to ever happen, but correct.


[quote]I don't believe that to be right at all[/quote]

Why not?


[quote]I don't believe majority is referring to each type vs the unit.[/quote]

That's what 'majority' [i]means[/i].]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/497578.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/497578.page GMT
I don't believe that to be right at all and since toughness and ws are both worded the same way...

I don't believe majority is referring to each type vs the unit. (3 vs 6, 1 vs 6, 2 vs 6) I'd bet that majority is a reference to the other types in the unit,
ie 3 vs 1 vs 1 in which case you would treat the above example as toughness 4 not 5 since it makes more sense that bullets would hit more T4 guys than anybody else, since there are more of them than either other type. Otherwise you have one T5 model running around the whole unit catching all the bullets and that seems silly.

[/quote]

The mixed armor/toughness rules are written very poorly, because they more or less assume that there are only 2 types of armor in the unit. However, they still read clearly, even when there are more than two types, they simply lead to some complicated and potentially absurd situations.

What it does is present an "either/or" situation, when the reality is that they could have an "either/or/or" situation. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/497598.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/497598.page GMT [quote=dancingcricket]CD.52D.01 - I'm curious as to how you got from RAW (All attacks from followers of Nurgle ignore armour saves!) to not include all attacks? I'm pretty sure that someone shooting at you is an attack, and not a display of affection or a marraige proposal...[/quote]


It is listed as a [clarification] not [RAW]. All of Epidemus's gifts up until the final one are most certainly CC based, and the term 'attacks' is both a very general word and a game term for a models close combat 'Attacks' (such as in their profile). GW has in the past made the same mistake of using the term 'Attacks' in a rule that pretty clearly didn't make sense when applied to 'ranged attacks' (the Tzeentch Gargoyle upgrade in the previous CSM codex, for example).

As such, we've made the ruling that this reference to 'Attacks' is indeed referring to the more strict game definition of close combat 'attacks'. Although, I do agree that this probably should be re-categorized as a [rules change].
[/quote]


Yeah, I would consider that a rules change. Attack is used to represent both shooting and close combat in the rulebook. An example;

Pg. 20 under Invulnerable Saves;

'The Armour Piercing value of attacking weapons has no effect.'

or any of the vehicle result table.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/498825.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/498825.page GMT
What's happening when you try?

[/quote]

"The file is damaged and could not be repaired."

I'm using Firefox. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/498859.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/498859.page GMT
Only thing I can think of is for you to check what version of Acrobat Reader you're using. You need to have at least 7.0.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/499026.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/499026.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/499351.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/499351.page GMT YMTC thread]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/502671.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/502671.page GMT [quote=Redbeard][quote]
RB.67F.01 – Q: When a transport vehicle suffers a ‘Destroyed – explodes!’ result its passengers must be placed “where the vehicle used to be”. What exactly does this mean?

A: Passengers must be placed wholly inside the area of the table that the vehicle’s hull previously occupied. Any models that cannot fit entirely within this area or are within 1” of an enemy model are removed from play as a casualty. In addition, the models count as having disembarked from a vehicle (and so cannot assault the same turn if the vehicle wasn’t open-topped, for example) [rules change].
[/quote]

This is fairly harsh for a self-described Rules Change. There's nothing in the rules that indicates that models get auto-removed if they don't fit. Can you fit 20 bases within the footprint of the new official ork battlewagon model? If not, I think this is a very poor decision. Can you fit 10 bases within the footprint of a rhino? Or 12 within a chimera? And, if you can fit all the transportable models within the footprint of every relevant transport model, what's the point of making a case for models that don't fit?[/quote]

I think you can, but we'll look into it. The first part of that answer is RAW, by the way. Then second part really is more of a clarification than a change (and only applies if the vehicle is destroyed in the owning player's turn).
[/quote]

I got my battlewagon over the weekend and assembled it during the Vikings-Eagles game. You can, barely, fit 20 ork boyz base-to-base under the footprint of the battlewagon.

Here are some things you cannot fit:
19 boyz + warboss (40mm base)
10 meganobs (40mm bases)
19 boys + big mek (40mm base)
18 boyz + mek + warboss

Is it really so bad to just require that models that were within a destroyed transport must be placed as close to within the footprint of the vehicle as possible? I don't think it all that appropriate that this FAQ demands that a player lose models when a player using stock GW models cannot fulfill the requirement.


]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/503889.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/503889.page GMT
"Any models unable to be placed within or touching the edge of the vehicle's footprint, and that are not more than 1" away from an enemy model, count as destroyed."

That gives some leeway with regards to the vehicle models that are basically clown cars(like Orks have), but not much. The main point is of course not to let the enemy surround your vehicle and then pop it in the first place.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/508015.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/508015.page GMT [quote=BoxANT][quote]IG.GEN.02 – Q: When models are part of a Heavy
Weapon team do either of them have a Lasgun?
A: Both models have a lasgun and either may fire the
heavy weapon (but not both at the same time) while the
other model fires his lasgun [RAW]. [/quote]

So am I correct in reading this in that if the HW team moves, both can fire their lasguns? [/quote]

Yes. But remember that if you are going to play this way you'll need to have lasguns modeled on each of your Heavy Weapon trooper models.

[/quote]


No, you only have to represent upgrades. All guardsmen have lasguns, unless they're replaced by upgrades. If the lascannon replaces either model's lasgun, then they lose it. If they just "take" the lascannon, then they still have their basic equipment and you don't have to represent that - not having to represent basic equipment allows players to model injured guardsmen holding no weapons or a sergeant holding a sword and throwing a grenade, or a space marine breaking a hormagaunt's neck with his bare hands without having to worry about "does he have a weapon?"

Same with CSM. All have bolters and bp/ccw. So if they are modelled with bolters, or modelled with bp/ccw, they still have all three weapons in both ways.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/525624.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/525624.page GMT
In American voting systems, if someone gets 40% of the votes and two other factions get 30%, the vote doesn't go through because a majority hasn't been reached. I think the word is a plurality.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/525629.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/225424/525629.page GMT