Adepticon has just released the FAQ that they will be using at this year's tournament, and I'm proud to announce that it a document that is written and edited by me, although all rulings were still made by a collaboration of players (with myself included in that council). It is called "The Independent National Warhammer 40,000 Tournament FAQ" (or "INAT_FAQ" for short).

You can either download it from their front page:

http://www.adepticon.org/


Or you can simply download it from the attachment at the bottom of this post.


As always, feedback on the document is welcome and changes can and will likely be made to the FAQ before the tournament rolls around so make sure you check back to get the latest version before you travel. You can either post that feedback here in this thread, or you can head on over to Adepticon's forums and do it there (either way it will get noticed):

Adepticon's FAQ feedback thread


Some of you may be wondering: Why is this called the "Independent National Tournament" FAQ and not just the "Adepticon FAQ" as usual. This is because the FAQ was written in such a way that it hopefully can be used by any other tournament should they want to adopt it for their own needs. If enough tournaments choose to utilize the document it is our hope that we might actually help to achieve a little bit of rules consistency in the US tournament scene. Those are, of course lofty goals but everyone has to dream, right?

That is an amazing piece of work.

Bravo sir, Bravo!

It's very well laid out. It is also very useful that it gives the status for each answer (change or RAW) and when needed, a justification.

Excellent!

Hey GW, pay attention. This is how professionals do it.

(or more precisely, this is how very smart amateurs make actual professionals look silly and incompetent).

mauleed wrote:Hey GW, pay attention. This is how professionals do it.

(or more precisely, this is how very smart amateurs make actual professionals look silly and incompetent).

Ditto'd for truthiness

Uh, am I the only one who noticed that the FAQ itself is dated 2007?

Ghaz wrote:Uh, am I the only one who noticed that the FAQ itself is dated 2007?

Yes? Wow. several pairs of eyes and months of proof-reading and still the most obvious thing in the word was missed. Thanks, Ghaz. You can be assured that the next version of it will have that little error corrected.

Well we did start the process in 2007 with the idea it would be released in 2007. Does that count?

I will say that the FAQ was/is a huge undertaking. I personally can not give enough praise to to Jon "Yakface" for his efforts. He has put a good bit of blood, sweat, and tears into creating an amazing document. I personally appreciate, as well as the rest of the contributors, his efforts. For my part in it was minor. As with anything, elements of it will be controversial, in the end differences of opinion about a handful of rules must be set aside, a method adopted, and games played with hopefully a greater common understanding.

how embarrassing for games-workshop. but major up's for the authors !

Lots of big rules changes there. Gotta give props for all the work that must have been involved though.

I have to say, this is a really nice peice of work. Printing it up as I type right now for transfer into page protectors. Thanx to all those involved in making it.

I know this FAQ isnt totally "official" but.....

@Mauleed-can my Dark Angels shoot pistols at you and charge now? Will you allow it?

...will you be DOING it?

Awesome work, again. This will be in my gear for every 40k tournament I attend this year, though I don't envy you the work of doing it again when 5th ed comes out.

jeremycobert wrote:how embarrassing for games-workshop. but major up's for the authors !

Not at all. It just shows how much effort is involved in doing a *proper* FAQ. You've got probably a half-dozen people working for a half-dozen months quarter-time. That's like 9 staff months worth of work. And it excludes "professional" typesetting and proofing for print production.

If you look at GW's studio resources, the overall effort for a comprehensive FAQ probably very comparable to producing a Codex or Army Book, just without the minis. If anybody thinks GW is going to spend that kind of effort for something that drives NO direct miniatures sales, they need to rethink how GW actually works.

From a player perspective, would you rather have seen FAQ:40k take the Ork Codex slot, and the Dark Eldar (ha!) being pushed back even farther in the queue? Yeah, I know, after a decade, waiting another 6 months or year isn't a big deal, but I still think getting the new Codex & minis sooner is better.

Downloading as we speak. Thanks to all that made this document. Props!!

Capt K

This thread is in place to allow feedback on this FAQ. If this discussion veers towards a GW FAQ thread I may have to delete posts to get things back on topic.


Just think of me as gold leader:

"Stay on topic".

Thanks Yak and Adeptus, we are using this one around the shop as a "standardized" FAQ. Better something standardized than making decisions after every rules question. Very worthwhile for the gaming community, and it will help prepare us when we head up for the tourney. Your hard work is greatly appreciated by the community.

Can I be Pops? AKA Gold 5? LOL...I count 30 guns...some on the towers...some on the surface.

Capt K

yakface wrote:
This thread is in place to allow feedback on this FAQ. If this discussion veers towards a GW FAQ thread I may have to delete posts to get things back on topic.


Just think of me as gold leader:

"Stay on topic".

This goes out to the crew that worked on this: Great Job!!

To Yak specifically - It's time to get rid of this from your sig

"yakface's 40K rule #1: You can use modeling to your advantage, you can use modeling to your advantage, you can use modeling to your advantage."

Seeing that it's the very first rule addressed in the document - you should practice what you preach.

RB.52.05 – Q: Can a Psyker use more than one
psychic power per player turn?
A: Each codex lists their army’s particular psychic
limitations [RAW]. If no limitation is listed (such as the
Tyranid codex), a psyker is free to use as many psychic
powers per player turn as allowed by the rules for their
psychic powers. However unless specified otherwise,
each particular power may not be used more than once
per turn [rules change].

Once per player turn, right? It would probably be good to specify.

Also, it doesn’t appear that the “player turn” vs “game turn” distinction is mentioned definitionally, at least not on page 4 where I’d expect to find it.

Mannahnin wrote:RB.52.05 – Q: Can a Psyker use more than one
psychic power per player turn?
A: Each codex lists their army’s particular psychic
limitations [RAW]. If no limitation is listed (such as the
Tyranid codex), a psyker is free to use as many psychic
powers per player turn as allowed by the rules for their
psychic powers. However unless specified otherwise,
each particular power may not be used more than once
per turn [rules change].

Once per player turn, right? It would probably be good to specify.

Also, it doesn’t appear that the “player turn” vs “game turn” distinction is mentioned definitionally, at least not on page 4 where I’d expect to find it.

Player turn vs. game turn is defined in the GW FAQ, with any plain reference of "turn" meaning "player turn".

But I'll ammend that answer to add "player" to the mix just to be clear.

Nice work, fellas. I noticed something that may or may not be an error:

"MCO.08B – Q: The GW online SM FAQ states that
any model in Terminator Armor may Deep Strike
even if the mission doesn’t normally allow it. Does
this apply to any other codices?
A: This ruling only applies to Terminators taken from the
Space Marine, Black Templar, Dark Angels, Blood Angels,
and Space Wolf codices along with any Marine
Terminators whose rules refer back to the basic Space
Marine codex [GW FAQ overrule].
Ref: BT.28A.01, DH.19A.01, SM.25C.02"

I thought Space Wolves "Will Not Teleport?"

Pariah Press wrote: Nice work, fellas. I noticed something that may or may not be an error:

"MCO.08B – Q: The GW online SM FAQ states that
any model in Terminator Armor may Deep Strike
even if the mission doesn’t normally allow it. Does
this apply to any other codices?
A: This ruling only applies to Terminators taken from the
Space Marine, Black Templar, Dark Angels, Blood Angels,
and Space Wolf codices along with any Marine
Terminators whose rules refer back to the basic Space
Marine codex [GW FAQ overrule].
Ref: BT.28A.01, DH.19A.01, SM.25C.02"

I thought Space Wolves "Will Not Teleport?"

Yep, it will be changed. Thanks.

Deadshane1 wrote:I know this FAQ isnt totally "official" but.....

@Mauleed-can my Dark Angels shoot pistols at you and charge now? Will you allow it?

...will you be DOING it?

Only if we're playing at a tournament that uses this FAQ. (irrelevant because you won't see me at a 40k tournament until 5th comes out. I'm sticking with fantasy)

I don't care what rules we use, just as long as we're all using the same ones. This thing is so awesome if I still ran tournaments I'd insist we used it.

Oh, Yakface, is there any chance of clarification of the cost to include Honour Guards in Ultramarine squads, and whether models upgraded to be Deathwatch Vets have True Grit or not? I see these questions, well, "Frequently Asked."

We're most definitely still accepting more valid questions.

Can you flush out the ones you've posted a bit (I'm familiar with the Honor Guard question)?

In particular, what are the details regarding Deathwatch vets and True Grit (give me a synopsis)?

"As an alternative to fielding entire Kill Teams, you may upgrade one or more members of any Space Marine army... It costs 5 points to make a model a Deathwatch Veteran (there is no change to its profile)... etc."

The Deathwatch Kill Team unit entry lists True Grit as a special rule.

There has been some disagreement as to whether a model upgraded to being a Deathwatch Veteran receives True Grit or not.

Mannahnin wrote:RB.52.05 – Q: Can a Psyker use more than one
psychic power per player turn?
A: Each codex lists their army’s particular psychic
limitations [RAW]. If no limitation is listed (such as the
Tyranid codex), a psyker is free to use as many psychic
powers per player turn as allowed by the rules for their
psychic powers. However unless specified otherwise,
each particular power may not be used more than once
per turn [rules change].

It is too bad that is the ruling. It makes Ahriman useless.

why dont most of the ork characters have the waaagh rule? i would think that big bad named ork characters would DEFINATLY gain the power of the waaaagh.

OMG...color diagrams. /faints

All of my comments in Italics.

===============================

RB.39.02A – Q: If models fighting an existing close
combat are within cover and charged by a new
enemy unit do they get the cover bonus? Do the
Attacking models get to use grenades?
A: No. Once locked in combat, models within cover gain
no further benefit from it and therefore attackers cannot
use grenades or Flesh Hooks against them [rules change].

Question: I think you should make it a bit clearer that you still roll difficult terrain to charge, but then resolve attacks in normal initiative order for all combatants.

=========================

RB.47B.01 – Q: What constitutes a shooting
casualty for causing a morale check? Do models
killed by an exploding vehicle count?
A: Any casualty suffered in the shooting phase counts,
regardless of the source [rules change].

I'm curious why this was decided as a good thing? It would also include losses to being shot out of a transport vehicle, so if I'm not 'entangled' I might run away because my Rhino was blown up? Really?

You also don't cover casaulties from game mechanics in the movement phase. If you do the above, why not also cover this?

Seems very odd for a deffrolla to crush my Rhino, force me out, I lose guys and don't care; but the lootas that did the same thing to second squad might make them run.
It's not consistent.

==============================

RB.51.02 – Q: When Independent Characters are
joined to, or part of a unit, and that unit is wiped
out by shooting or close combat, does the
character still take Morale and Pinning tests as if
he was part of the unit (including the -1 Ld
modifier for the unit being under 50% strength)?
A: Yes, for Morale and Pinning purposes, they count as
being part of the unit through the end of the phase in
which the unit was wiped out [rules change].
Also, enemies who fired at the unit that was
subsequently wiped out may still declare a charge against
the (now) lone IC in the following Assault phase.

You don't cover additional shooting in this instance. Do they also count as being part of the unit through the end of the phase for other purposes? If so, this effectively strips IC's of their IC status until the shooting phase is over. Lascannons away!

==============================

Under Psychic powers, you list Nurgles rot as using a template. Since the word template is defined as one of three templates....and rot does not use these, you might want to change that.

===============================

RB.52.05 – Q: Can a Psyker use more than one
psychic power per player turn?
A: Each codex lists their army’s particular psychic
limitations [RAW]. If no limitation is listed (such as the
Tyranid codex), a psyker is free to use as many psychic
powers per player turn as allowed by the rules for their
psychic powers. However unless specified otherwise,
each particular power may not be used more than once
per turn [rules change].
Ref: CSM.32.01

You don't mention Force Weapons. These have a restriction of 'this or nothing else' in the BBB. There are exceptions (Mephiston).

================================

RB.54B.01 – Q: Can a jetbike model carrying a
rapid fire or heavy weapon (as opposed to a bikemounted
weapon) fire it and then charge into
combat in the subsequent Assault phase?
A: Yes, a jetbike model may fire any heavy or rapid fire
weapon and still charge into combat. Note that the rapid
fire weapon may only be fired at maximum range if it is
actually bike-mounted [RAW].
Ref: RB.53B.01

I don't see any mention of heavy weapons for the Jetbike being able to be used and then a Jetbike move. I do see it for Jump Infantry. Shouldn't this be covered?

==============================

RB.61.02G – Q: Can a Skimmer choose to enter
difficult terrain rather than hovering over it?
A: A Skimmer may not normally choose to enter difficult
terrain unless it has a special rule that allows it to do so
[RAW].

RB.61.02H – Q: Can a Skimmer Tank Shock enemy
units in area terrain? If so, does the Skimmer
move into the terrain?
A: A Skimmer tank that declares a Tank Shock against a
unit in area terrain is allowed to (and must) move into
the terrain to do so, but it will take a dangerous terrain
test like a non-Skimmer to do so [rules change].

So what happens if the Skimmer cannot exit the terrain because it's moved as far as it's going to--what if it gets stunned and cannot move further as a result of a DOG attack? These two rules contradict each other in that instance.

===================================

RB.74G.02 – Q: If two units locked in combat with
each other both have the Hit & Run USR, how is
that situation handled?
A: The unit with the higher Initiative characteristic (use
the majority rule) makes its Hit & Run move first. If both
units have the same Initiative, randomly determine which
unit moves first [rules change].

This seems bad. Why isn't this resolved just like Pile In moves are, player whose turn it is goes first? Seems kindy bullshitty that a higher Init unit that got charged, can hit & run away from another unit that also has hit & run but is lower init. Gives the advantage to one player always, instead of as designed--to the player whose turn (and assault phase) it is.

===============================

RB.81A.01 – Q: If a single Force Organization
choice is made up of several units (such as an
Imperial Guard Platoon) and only some of those
units can Infiltrate/Deep Strike/etc, can those
abilities be utilized or must the entire choice be
deployed at the same time?
A: Units with a special deployment ability are free to
utilize it, even if it they will be deployed at a different
time from the rest of their Force Organization choice
[clarification]. However, all units from a single Force
Organization chart using the same special deployment
ability are deployed at the same time.

You do realize this is not really practical? 6 IG teams cannot all be deployed at the same time when deep striking, or do you really expect IG players to place 6 unit leaders down; roll scatter for each; and place each? I know I wouldn't want to bother with it.

==============================

RB.81A.02 – Q: When the mission says that units
may not be deployed within 18” inches of the
enemy. Does that mean they can be exactly 18”
away or that they must be set up more than 18”
away from each other?
A: Models must be set up more than the distance
specified apart from each other. Meaning that models
that are able to move 6” and assault 12” are unable to
charge on the very first player turn [clarification].

Yet, cannot all of the units that CAN make that move, also fleet? So by definition, they can ALL assault first turn as the minimum roll for fleet is 1"? The only exception I believe is Tyranid Warriors?

================================

RB.84C.02 – Does Deep Striking into difficult
terrain count as moving into the terrain for models
that have to take Dangerous Terrain tests when
moving into terrain?
A: Yes [rules change].

If possible, you should clarify how far the models are counted as moving, since that would for say Land Speeders actually be TWO dangerous terrain tests since they currently count as moving over 12". Tau Crisis Suits can fire, so they would be defined as moving 6", so they'd only take 1 test. Just a suggestion.

============================

RB.84I.07 – Q: What happens to units in Reserve
that never arrive on the table the whole game?
A: Unless specified otherwise, units off the table at the
end of the game count as destroyed and give full Victory
Points to your opponent [rules change]. This rule does
not apply to ‘Type: Flyer’ vehicles and units embarked on
transports at the end of the game.
Ref: RB.62.01, RB.85.03

By definition, this means that units aboard transports that never arrived would not count as destroyed. Might want to clear that up a bit.

Ah I see you did here, might want to add it up there.

RB.85.03 – Q: Do Vehicles that end the game off
the table give up Victory Points?
A: Unless specified otherwise, units off the table at the
end of the game count as destroyed and give full Victory
Points to your opponent [rules change]. This rule does
not apply to ‘Type: Flyer’ vehicles and units embarked on
transports (that are on the table) at the end of the game.
Ref: RB.62.01, RB.84I.06

===============================

Ok that's enough for one day. I'll take a look at the MCO and later stuff another time.

Few thinks I would like to see added. (hopefully I didn't just miss them)

-Turbo boosting bikes vs psycannons.
-Does a model with a Goblet of Spite hit skimmers on a 3+ in CC?
-Does Tigurius's Hood of Hellfire double the range of Fear of the Darkness?

Looks like they agreed with me on Typhus' force plaguebringer

One thing I noticed...

Typo Noticed - The first page of Daemonhunters Queries are listed as CSM Queries.

What does "free shooting" mean? (DH Mystics)

While I agree with Mauleed that it would be nice to have all players playing the same set of rules, I disagree with some of your rulings. They're entirely subjective. The willy-nilly application of RAW or "whatever the hell the authors want," apparently at random, is rather infuriating.

It would've been nice if you used and explained some sort of universal metric to solve the ambiguous rules, instead of simply ruling by the seat of your pants.

I don't understand the ruling in regards to the Gaurdian weapon platforms. That is an obvious change rather then a clarification. Why change a rule that is clear?

These decisions were not made at the seat of anyones pants. They were done after careful discussion between several experienced players.

No you don't need to use these rules; you just have to use them if you come to Adepticon. Some rule has to be made when hundreds of people come to play from all over the country.

This FAQ really goes into a lot of detail. Hopefully there will not be as many questions this year. Job well done.

- G

studderingdave wrote:why dont most of the ork characters have the waaagh rule? i would think that big bad named ork characters would DEFINATLY gain the power of the waaaagh.

Only Wazzdakka and Zagstruk have had their Waaagh! removed and only because the Waaagh! doesn't do anything for non-infantry models (which both of them are). So either way you slice it they aren't getting anything from the Waaagh! and it is likely that the fact they even have it is a typo since there are several other instances in the codex of units being listed as having a special rule in one section of the codex and not in the other section.

IntoTheRain wrote:Few thinks I would like to see added. (hopefully I didn't just miss them)

-Turbo boosting bikes vs psycannons.
-Does a model with a Goblet of Spite hit skimmers on a 3+ in CC?
-Does Tigurius's Hood of Hellfire double the range of Fear of the Darkness?

*Turbo Boosting vs. Psycannons is covered (RB.76C.01).
*I'll have to check out the Goblet of spite (thanks).
*The Tigirius question is answered (SM.49.01).

Death By Monkeys wrote:One thing I noticed...

Typo Noticed - The first page of Daemonhunters Queries are listed as CSM Queries.

Hmmm. . .

That seems to be some sort of formatting error when it gets converted to a PDF. It looks fine in my Word document, so I'll have to loook into that. Thanks!

ColonelEllios wrote:What does "free shooting" mean? (DH Mystics)

While I agree with Mauleed that it would be nice to have all players playing the same set of rules, I disagree with some of your rulings. They're entirely subjective. The willy-nilly application of RAW or "whatever the hell the authors want," apparently at random, is rather infuriating.

It would've been nice if you used and explained some sort of universal metric to solve the ambiguous rules, instead of simply ruling by the seat of your pants.

The "free" shooting by the mystics is the shot the unit is allowed to take at any unit deep striking within range of the mystic. Do I need to make this more clear in your opinion?

As for your overall points about the FAQ I would like to address them:

All FAQs are subjective as they are made by people and people have differing opinions. On the last page of the FAQ I wrote a little bit about the reasoning for why the FAQ is written the way it is. The goal of the FAQ isn't to always 'get it right' by the RAW, but rather to provide a smooth gaming experience for the majority of the players at the tournament. As I say in the document, most players who attend a tournament are not going to read a nearly 90 page document, they are just going to show up and play their games. If the FAQ irks a few players ahead of time (but they adjust) and the vast majority of players never even have to know the FAQ exists (because they're already playing the way the FAQ rules) then I think we've done our job of making a document that assists in creating a smooth running tournament.

The fact is, you cannot make a FAQ that adheres strictly to the RAW. If you did the game would be ridiculously unplayable, believe me. So when you claim that we've made rulings "willy-nilly" basically what you are saying is that we've ruled in some places to make rules changes where you personally wouldn't have. That feeling is entirely understandable.

We have been very clear in which cases we feel we've changed the rules (by denoting them as a [rules change] ) and in some extreme cases I have put a further description of why the change was made. But to be honest, whether we explain our rationale behind making a rules change or not, it isn't likely to change the disatisfaction you have with the rule being changed in the first place. So really the only thing an explanation as to why a rule was changed along with every [rules change] would only serve to inflate an already overly long document to ridiculous proportions.

If you have any specific gripes with the rules changes by all means post them in this thread (or over on the awc boards).

I hope this has clarified things a bit for you but I fully understand that there are always going to be some people who are unsatisfied no matter how the FAQ is written (certain people get angry if a FAQ sticks to closely to the RAW while others get angry if a FAQ strays too far from the RAW).

Mahu wrote:I don't understand the ruling in regards to the Gaurdian weapon platforms. That is an obvious change rather then a clarification. Why change a rule that is clear?

A decision was made because the ability of a Guardian unit to place its gunners on either side of the unit and then 'jump' the gun to either end of the unit as needed (even in the shooting phase after seeing what other units had destroyed) seemed ridiculous to the majority of the players in the council. As such, a rules change was made to force the gunner models within 2" of each otehr as it seemed the simpilest way to resolve the issue and was in-keeping with a similar ruling we had made regarding IG weapon teams that are based separately.

Great product, well illustrated, a pleasure to read.

Though I note you did leave out the frequently asked question on marine sexual preferences.

I have a formatting suggestion. Each codex section refers back to other pages, which is convienent during the drafting stage and good if you intend to walk around with the entire 88 page document.

However players who want to simply print out the FAQ for their own codex will be caught without some answers.

So I recommend cutting and pasting the answers for 'know no fear' etc into each section.

I'd also replace refrences to RAW to 'rules as written' you don't use acronyms for the other rationales and unlike 'FAQ' RAW is not a common term in either English or GW rules, I've really only seen it on Dakka.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:Great product, well illustrated, a pleasure to read.

Though I note you did leave out the frequently asked question on marine sexual preferences.

That would be for the FARQ: Frequently Asked Rhetorical Questions.

Okay here goes:

Stelek wrote:
RB.39.02A – Q: If models fighting an existing close
combat are within cover and charged by a new
enemy unit do they get the cover bonus? Do the
Attacking models get to use grenades?
A: No. Once locked in combat, models within cover gain
no further benefit from it and therefore attackers cannot
use grenades or Flesh Hooks against them [rules change].

Question: I think you should make it a bit clearer that you still roll difficult terrain to charge, but then resolve attacks in normal initiative order for all combatants.

I see where you're going, but the ruling doesn't involve moving through terrain at all. I'm not sure that including that would clarify or confuse things more (because people may wonder why the heck I'm mentioning movement in the answer at all).

RB.47B.01 – Q: What constitutes a shooting
casualty for causing a morale check? Do models
killed by an exploding vehicle count?
A: Any casualty suffered in the shooting phase counts,
regardless of the source [rules change].

I'm curious why this was decided as a good thing? It would also include losses to being shot out of a transport vehicle, so if I'm not 'entangled' I might run away because my Rhino was blown up? Really?

You also don't cover casaulties from game mechanics in the movement phase. If you do the above, why not also cover this?

Seems very odd for a deffrolla to crush my Rhino, force me out, I lose guys and don't care; but the lootas that did the same thing to second squad might make them run.
It's not consistent.

What exactly constitutes a shooting casualty sadly isn't defined in the rulebook. The last official GW FAQ to cover the subject (in 3rd edition) did rule that casualties caused by an exploding vehicle indeed counted towards morale checks. And if you think about it, it does make sense. When you destroy a vehicle through shooting the explosion is a direct result of that shooting, ergo it is a casualty caused by shooting. So rather than do a whole bunch of clarifications based on case-by-base basis of wierd special rules (and risk missing a ruling on a particular item) it is much simpler to make a blanket ruling that anything in the shooting phase counts as a shooting casaulty for morale checks.

As for casualties in the movment phase causing morale checks, it was a topic brought up. Ultimately it was decided that it would be too much of a strech on our part to start imposing a brand new morale check in a phase that normally doesn't have one. You are right that it is incosistent, but I think it is one of those inconsistencies that we (as the council) will have to live with. When we go back over the FAQ based on this feedback I will bring this point up again and see what everyone thinks.

RB.51.02 – Q: When Independent Characters are
joined to, or part of a unit, and that unit is wiped
out by shooting or close combat, does the
character still take Morale and Pinning tests as if
he was part of the unit (including the -1 Ld
modifier for the unit being under 50% strength)?
A: Yes, for Morale and Pinning purposes, they count as
being part of the unit through the end of the phase in
which the unit was wiped out [rules change].
Also, enemies who fired at the unit that was
subsequently wiped out may still declare a charge against
the (now) lone IC in the following Assault phase.

You don't cover additional shooting in this instance. Do they also count as being part of the unit through the end of the phase for other purposes? If so, this effectively strips IC's of their IC status until the shooting phase is over. Lascannons away!

Just what the ruling actually says: for morale and pinning purposes (and for the ability to declare a charge on the IC in the subsequent assault phase) they count as part of the unit until the end of the phase. The character would still immediately benefit from the IC targeting restriction if his unit was destroyed around him.

Under Psychic powers, you list Nurgles rot as using a template. Since the word template is defined as one of three templates....and rot does not use these, you might want to change that.

That is most definitely an error I will fix (it should be '3' instead of a '2'). Thanks!

RB.52.05 – Q: Can a Psyker use more than one
psychic power per player turn?
A: Each codex lists their army’s particular psychic
limitations [RAW]. If no limitation is listed (such as the
Tyranid codex), a psyker is free to use as many psychic
powers per player turn as allowed by the rules for their
psychic powers. However unless specified otherwise,
each particular power may not be used more than once
per turn [rules change].
Ref: CSM.32.01

You don't mention Force Weapons. These have a restriction of 'this or nothing else' in the BBB. There are exceptions (Mephiston).

At the time I wrote this ruling I did a pretty thorough check of the codices. I believe that any codex that uses a Force Weapon also has a 'one power per turn' psyker clause in it. I could be wrong and if I am I'd appreciate the heads-up.

RB.54B.01 – Q: Can a jetbike model carrying a
rapid fire or heavy weapon (as opposed to a bikemounted
weapon) fire it and then charge into
combat in the subsequent Assault phase?
A: Yes, a jetbike model may fire any heavy or rapid fire
weapon and still charge into combat. Note that the rapid
fire weapon may only be fired at maximum range if it is
actually bike-mounted [RAW].
Ref: RB.53B.01

I don't see any mention of heavy weapons for the Jetbike being able to be used and then a Jetbike move. I do see it for Jump Infantry. Shouldn't this be covered?

To my knowledge, the only model that can carry a heavy weapon on a jetbike is an Eldar Autarch. As such, this ruling is found only in the Eldar section (which we ruled that he could indeed move and shoot a heavy weapon). If I've missed another jetbike model that carries a heavy weapon, please let me know.

RB.61.02G – Q: Can a Skimmer choose to enter
difficult terrain rather than hovering over it?
A: A Skimmer may not normally choose to enter difficult
terrain unless it has a special rule that allows it to do so
[RAW].

RB.61.02H – Q: Can a Skimmer Tank Shock enemy
units in area terrain? If so, does the Skimmer
move into the terrain?
A: A Skimmer tank that declares a Tank Shock against a
unit in area terrain is allowed to (and must) move into
the terrain to do so, but it will take a dangerous terrain
test like a non-Skimmer to do so [rules change].

So what happens if the Skimmer cannot exit the terrain because it's moved as far as it's going to--what if it gets stunned and cannot move further as a result of a DOG attack? These two rules contradict each other in that instance.

I don't see these two rulings as contradicting. Normally a skimmer cannot enter terrain but if it tank shocks a unit in terrain it must do so. If the skimmer is forced to end its move in the terrain it will do so over the terrain as normal (although I do think I should clarify that last bit so it is clear what to do if the Tank Shock movement ends in terrain).

RB.74G.02 – Q: If two units locked in combat with
each other both have the Hit & Run USR, how is
that situation handled?
A: The unit with the higher Initiative characteristic (use
the majority rule) makes its Hit & Run move first. If both
units have the same Initiative, randomly determine which
unit moves first [rules change].

This seems bad. Why isn't this resolved just like Pile In moves are, player whose turn it is goes first? Seems kindy bs that a higher Init unit that got charged, can hit & run away from another unit that also has hit & run but is lower init. Gives the advantage to one player always, instead of as designed--to the player whose turn (and assault phase) it is.

Well, you do realize that both units still get to make the hit-and-run fall back move right? As this ruling stands just the one with the higher initiative does it first. I can make that more clear and I'll bring it up the council to see if we want to change it to what you suggest. It doesn't really have a major game impact (that I can see) either way it is ruled.

RB.81A.01 – Q: If a single Force Organization
choice is made up of several units (such as an
Imperial Guard Platoon) and only some of those
units can Infiltrate/Deep Strike/etc, can those
abilities be utilized or must the entire choice be
deployed at the same time?
A: Units with a special deployment ability are free to
utilize it, even if it they will be deployed at a different
time from the rest of their Force Organization choice
[clarification]. However, all units from a single Force
Organization chart using the same special deployment
ability are deployed at the same time.

You do realize this is not really practical? 6 IG teams cannot all be deployed at the same time when deep striking, or do you really expect IG players to place 6 unit leaders down; roll scatter for each; and place each? I know I wouldn't want to bother with it.

All this ruling means is that if you have several infiltrating units from the same force Org choice (for example) they'd have to still be deployed together as a single 'choice' when it came time to deploy a unit.

As for Deep Striking a platoon, you most certainly have to roll for scatter with each unit. . .there isn't any other way without drastically altering the Deep Strike rules.

RB.81A.02 – Q: When the mission says that units
may not be deployed within 18” inches of the
enemy. Does that mean they can be exactly 18”
away or that they must be set up more than 18”
away from each other?
A: Models must be set up more than the distance
specified apart from each other. Meaning that models
that are able to move 6” and assault 12” are unable to
charge on the very first player turn [clarification].

Yet, cannot all of the units that CAN make that move, also fleet? So by definition, they can ALL assault first turn as the minimum roll for fleet is 1"? The only exception I believe is Tyranid Warriors?

It was simply an example to emphasize that if you have to set up 18" away from each other if models move exactly 18" in a turn they would be unable to assault each other in one player turn. I guess I'll change the example to models that move 12" in the movement phase and 6" in the assault phase and add "as an example" so as not to confuse anyone.

RB.84C.02 – Does Deep Striking into difficult
terrain count as moving into the terrain for models
that have to take Dangerous Terrain tests when
moving into terrain?
A: Yes [rules change].

If possible, you should clarify how far the models are counted as moving, since that would for say Land Speeders actually be TWO dangerous terrain tests since they currently count as moving over 12". Tau Crisis Suits can fire, so they would be defined as moving 6", so they'd only take 1 test. Just a suggestion.

The GW FAQ specifies that vehicles count as moving 12" when DS. I don't there any vehicles that DS besides skimmers (which don't actually DS into the terrain) and walkers (that take difficult terrain tests as infantry). non-vehicle models it doesn't matter "how far" they moved, just that they did move. If I'm wrong on any of these points feel free to let me know.

RB.84I.07 – Q: What happens to units in Reserve
that never arrive on the table the whole game?
A: Unless specified otherwise, units off the table at the
end of the game count as destroyed and give full Victory
Points to your opponent [rules change]. This rule does
not apply to ‘Type: Flyer’ vehicles and units embarked on
transports at the end of the game.
Ref: RB.62.01, RB.85.03

By definition, this means that units aboard transports that never arrived would not count as destroyed. Might want to clear that up a bit.

Ah I see you did here, might want to add it up there.

RB.85.03 – Q: Do Vehicles that end the game off
the table give up Victory Points?
A: Unless specified otherwise, units off the table at the
end of the game count as destroyed and give full Victory
Points to your opponent [rules change]. This rule does
not apply to ‘Type: Flyer’ vehicles and units embarked on
transports (that are on the table) at the end of the game.
Ref: RB.62.01, RB.84I.06

I see your point and I'll see what I can do to clear it up.

Whew!

Hey Yak -

As a side for ease of navigation - what would you think of inserting hyperlinks in the table of contents so that players could click to each section. We do it with all of our ISO documents that are PDFed. It works out really well for navigating documents quickly. This is more or less if you have time.

Greg

That sounds like a good idea! I'll PM you about this.

Ok here is one to add to the dark eldar faq

Q: Do combat drugs that say "Always strikes first" overide the Eldar's Howling Banshee banshee masks which state on the first turn of close combat ignores terrain and grenades, and effectively allows them to strike at I10?

A: Yes ( banshee masks do not override the dark eldar's combat drugs that say always strikes first. The RAW is very clear on what the howling banshee masks can and cannot negate).

I have had this come up in several events and the results are always the same.

For those that will say dice for it, i say NO not NOW not EVER. Not beng unreasonable here, but if the powers that be intended for the unit to negate that then they would have made it that way. They did not nor have they faq'd it.

Yak:

Force Weapons require a psychic test, but are not actually psychic powers per se. Since you can have multiple powers (and your FAQ allows them to use multiple powers unless otherwise specificed) and the BBB says you can NOT use a force weapon AND cast any other powers (exceptions are mephiston and ahriman I believe) this should be outlined to players--alot of people do NOT know this rule, and merrily Warptime/Force Weapon. It's not allowed.

Seraphim are slow, but Lictors and Shining Spears are fast. It doesn't matter if both units get to hit & run, GW has setup the assault phase so the player currently doing the assault gets to do everything BEFORE the other player. Essentially, you are using 'initiative' of a unit to break the games basic tenet that he who moves first gets to go first, choose what assaults to fight, moves models into base first, and hits/runs first. This is not only unfair, it isn't needed. Just clarify that the person who moves first hits/runs first, like everyone actually plays it. Don't change a rule without precedent. It's just meddling.

Sammael carries a plasma cannon, but he isn't a Eldar Jetbike--but he's still a Jetbike. Not sure if that really answers your question.

I understand what you are thinking I'm saying in regards to casaulties during the movement phase. It isn't what I'm saying though, so I will rephrase it and try again. Under the FAQ, you are ONLY talking about the SHOOTING phase. That's fine and dandy, but tank shock occurs in the MOVEMENT phase. The vehicle is dead either way, right? In the shooting phase, the casaulties count towards morale checks--but the movement phase casaulties do not. This doesn't make sense. If I suffer casaulties in ANY phase, I should either have to take casaulties or not. It's a continuity issue. You've also left out what happens when someone assaults my rhino, blows it up, and I lose 3 out of 8 guys. Again, under the FAQ, I don't care and stand pat. Why? Either I care about getting forced out of my vehicle, or I don't. Making an arbitrary statement that ONLY during shooting do your troops care, is irrational at best. It should ALWAYS be the same in-game result for the same in-game event.

Deep striking. What I meant was, it is IMPOSSIBLE and unfair to ask IG players to roll SIMULTANEOUSLY for all their deep strikes! I know the rule was meant to cover infiltrate, but it was used with a too broad brush and also covers deepstrike--which is unplayable. Example: I drop a full IG platoon. 6 units. I place them all simultaneously even thought that isn't what the rules say (one at a time) and then I roll 6 scatter dice and 12 d6? Come on, it's silly to require that just to make infiltrate all setup--and you also open pandora's box by IMPLYING that one reserve roll will bring in a IG platoon in all circumstances. Many a scenario has altered those rules.
Just my concerns on overcomplication.

Tank shock. Anytime you have 1 ruling clearly contradicting another, you should clearly say 'exception: event' so people don't argue and have to dig for another ruling to "clear it up".

Hope that helps.

Also....are the Witchhunter units known as Zealots out of the white dwarf still a viable unit in current formats?

Stelek wrote:
Force Weapons require a psychic test, but are not actually psychic powers per se. Since you can have multiple powers (and your FAQ allows them to use multiple powers unless otherwise specificed) and the BBB says you can NOT use a force weapon AND cast any other powers (exceptions are mephiston and ahriman I believe) this should be outlined to players--alot of people do NOT know this rule, and merrily Warptime/Force Weapon. It's not allowed.

OK so you're basically just saying that I should include a question mentioning that you can't use a psychic power on the same turn as a force weapon (essentially just reiterating what the rulebook says) because most people don't notice that rule?

Seraphim are slow, but Lictors and Shining Spears are fast. It doesn't matter if both units get to hit & run, GW has setup the assault phase so the player currently doing the assault gets to do everything BEFORE the other player. Essentially, you are using 'initiative' of a unit to break the games basic tenet that he who moves first gets to go first, choose what assaults to fight, moves models into base first, and hits/runs first. This is not only unfair, it isn't needed. Just clarify that the person who moves first hits/runs first, like everyone actually plays it. Don't change a rule without precedent. It's just meddling.

Fair enough. It will likely be changed in the next update.

Sammael carries a plasma cannon, but he isn't a Eldar Jetbike--but he's still a Jetbike. Not sure if that really answers your question.

That's good to know, but I guess the question regarding the Autarch more stems from the fact that he carries the Reaper Launcher (as opposed to having it mounted on his bike). I'm not sure anything really needs to be changed in the FAQ regarding this.

I understand what you are thinking I'm saying in regards to casaulties during the movement phase. It isn't what I'm saying though, so I will rephrase it and try again. Under the FAQ, you are ONLY talking about the SHOOTING phase. That's fine and dandy, but tank shock occurs in the MOVEMENT phase. The vehicle is dead either way, right? In the shooting phase, the casaulties count towards morale checks--but the movement phase casaulties do not. This doesn't make sense. If I suffer casaulties in ANY phase, I should either have to take casaulties or not. It's a continuity issue. You've also left out what happens when someone assaults my rhino, blows it up, and I lose 3 out of 8 guys. Again, under the FAQ, I don't care and stand pat. Why? Either I care about getting forced out of my vehicle, or I don't. Making an arbitrary statement that ONLY during shooting do your troops care, is irrational at best. It should ALWAYS be the same in-game result for the same in-game event.

But the issue has nothing to do with suffering casualties from vehicle disembarkation. It has to do with morale checks in phases outside of the shooting phase. There are several ways units can suffer casualties outside of the shooting phase: Walking through Castellan minefields, for example.

For whatever reason, the rules don't have morale checks simply for suffering casualties in the movement phase (and in the assault phase only for losing combat). The possibility of forcing players to take morale checks in the movement phase when they suffer casualties was brought up but ultimately the majority of the council felt that, because of the way the rules were written, most people just don't take morale checks in the movement phase when they suffer 25% casualties and that introducing such an element would be counter-productive to a smooth game.

I understand that you want to focus the issue on embarked models suffering casualties (because it isn't consistent across the different phases) but to be honest it really is just about the way the rules fail to have morale checks for casualties caused in odd ways in the movement & assault phases.

When it comes to casualties in the shooting phase, once you start to draw a line and try to say: "only these types of casualties count towards morale checks" you open a bigger can of worms because there is such a myriad of wierd shooting weapons that you just create a whole new slew of: "do casualties from X weapon count as casualties?"

Also if you disallow casualties caused by exploding vehicles to count towards morale checks now players have to keep track of which models were killed by regular shooting and which were killed by exploding vehicles, something that isn't always easy in a hectic shooting phase.

By making a blanket ruling: 'all casualties in the shooting phase count as shooting casualties' it makes it very simple to keep track of how many casualties a unit has suffered that phase without having to worry about exactly what killed them.


Now, if you are lobbying for a morale check to be added to the movement phase if the unit suffers 25% casualties, then I will take that information back to the council and we will discuss it for the next update, but I can say that we did discuss it previously and the idea was ultimately decided to be counter-productive.

Deep striking. What I meant was, it is IMPOSSIBLE and unfair to ask IG players to roll SIMULTANEOUSLY for all their deep strikes! I know the rule was meant to cover infiltrate, but it was used with a too broad brush and also covers deepstrike--which is unplayable. Example: I drop a full IG platoon. 6 units. I place them all simultaneously even thought that isn't what the rules say (one at a time) and then I roll 6 scatter dice and 12 d6? Come on, it's silly to require that just to make infiltrate all setup--and you also open pandora's box by IMPLYING that one reserve roll will bring in a IG platoon in all circumstances. Many a scenario has altered those rules.
Just my concerns on overcomplication.

I'm just not sure how you're getting what you're getting from the FAQ answer I've written. That said, I guess I'll just ged rid of the (supposed) clarification sentence at the end. Apparently it is causing more confusion than clarification.

Tank shock. Anytime you have 1 ruling clearly contradicting another, you should clearly say 'exception: event' so people don't argue and have to dig for another ruling to "clear it up".

Its already changed for the next release.

Rle68 wrote:Also....are the Witchhunter units known as Zealots out of the white dwarf still a viable unit in current formats?

That is an Adepticon tournament question (as opposed to a rules question) but the answer is pretty much yes. You should go to the Adepticon page and look in their tournament rules for more details about what rules are allowed in each particular tournament.

Here's one -

To score an objective (Secure and control for example) you have to be within a certain distance of the objective. Does the entire unit have to be entirely that distance or less, or does just having one model within the distance count? Can a squad capture multiple objectives?

Kid_Kyoto wrote:

I have a formatting suggestion. Each codex section refers back to other pages, which is convienent during the drafting stage and good if you intend to walk around with the entire 88 page document.

However players who want to simply print out the FAQ for their own codex will be caught without some answers.

So I recommend cutting and pasting the answers for 'know no fear' etc into each section.

I'd also replace refrences to RAW to 'rules as written' you don't use acronyms for the other rationales and unlike 'FAQ' RAW is not a common term in either English or GW rules, I've really only seen it on Dakka.

The formatting suggestion is a good one, but the whole point of this FAQ was to make something that wasn't disjointed like the rest of GW's FAQs and one of the ways to accomplish that is to reference back from multiple places to a single ruling. It would be possible to include multiple versions of every question in the appropriate section but that too would seriously bulk up the size of the document.

Of course then players might be more likely just to print up the sections for their codex. . .


As for 'RAW', the definition is included both in the introduction to the document and in the 'glossary of abbreviations' in the back. I don't think people will have too hard a time finding out the meaning if they need to. Plus even Jervis Johnson used 'RAW' in his standard bearer article so I'm sure it has penetrated a fair amount of gamer's brains.

skyth wrote:Here's one -

To score an objective (Secure and control for example) you have to be within a certain distance of the objective. Does the entire unit have to be entirely that distance or less, or does just having one model within the distance count? Can a squad capture multiple objectives?

That is one that should be addressed. It will be in the very front of the FAQ and will apply to all ranges and references of distance in the game.

On the psychic powers table (pg 16), you state that neither Eldritch Storm nor Mind War require line of site. The Eldar codex does not specify whether or not Eldritch Storm requires line of site, but I've always assumed that LoS is needed since no exemption is given. The Eldar codex does specify that Mind War requires LoS. Any reason for changing this in the FAQ?

You've changed star engines to be useable only if the vehicle is not shaken, stating that the vehicle must voluntarily give up its shooting (pg 49). You correctly mark this as a rule change, but why make this change? This eliminates one of the main uses of star engines. It also brings up the question of whether or not a vehicle can use star engines if all its weapons have been destroyed, but this is not addressed. As a comparison, I would note that a model with fleet and no gun is not giving up a chance to shoot when it makes its movement in the shooting phase.

Lastly, you state the Wraithlord does not receive +1A for having two close combat weapons (pg 50). You have this marked as a rule change, but I don't think it is. The wraithlord entry of the Eldar codex does not say anything to suggest that he has two CCWs. I think this would better be marked as a clarification.

Let me also say what a fantastic piece of work this is! I hope it goes over well at Adepticon.

Great job Yak and crew. While I have yet to read the document, your continued efforts in providing the support that GW can't is much appreciated.

Hopefully 5th edition will be a little tighter so you guys can expedite a similar document for 5th.

Thanks.

shirou wrote:On the psychic powers table (pg 16), you state that neither Eldritch Storm nor Mind War require line of site. The Eldar codex does not specify whether or not Eldritch Storm requires line of site, but I've always assumed that LoS is needed since no exemption is given. The Eldar codex does specify that Mind War requires LoS. Any reason for changing this in the FAQ?

Mind War is a mistake. The codex does clearly state that LOS is required and that will be amended. As for Eldritch Storm, at the top of the page of Warseer powers it cleary states that the powers do not require line of sight unless specified otherwise (as with Mind War). Since Eldritch Storm doesn't specify otherwise, it does not require LOS to use.

You've changed star engines to be useable only if the vehicle is not shaken, stating that the vehicle must voluntarily give up its shooting (pg 49). You correctly mark this as a rule change, but why make this change? This eliminates one of the main uses of star engines. It also brings up the question of whether or not a vehicle can use star engines if all its weapons have been destroyed, but this is not addressed. As a comparison, I would note that a model with fleet and no gun is not giving up a chance to shoot when it makes its movement in the shooting phase.

Because the rules for the Star Engine are that it may be used "in lieu" of shooting. In other words, star engines are used as a replacement for shooting and if you cannot shoot you cannot use the Star Engines. The idea behind the [rules change] tag was that by that interpretation a vehicle that moved over 12" couldn't use Star Engines as it isn't allowed to shoot when moving that fast and we were trying to still allow that to happen provided you at least had the option to shoot that turn.

In comparison, the fleet rule only specifies that the unit not shoot (or use a psychic power that replaces shooting) the same turn it fleets.

With all that said, I think this may be a bad ruling that slipped through. I'll make sure we discuss it before the revision is published.

Lastly, you state the Wraithlord does not receive +1A for having two close combat weapons (pg 50). You have this marked as a rule change, but I don't think it is. The wraithlord entry of the Eldar codex does not say anything to suggest that he has two CCWs. I think this would better be marked as a clarification.

Fair enough. But it actually doesn't have anything to do with having two CCWs but rather two single-handed weapons (which is all it takes to get a +1 in combat). Since the game often doesn't define what is single or two-handed, players can theoretically look at the Shuriken Catapults on each hand and say: He has two single-handed weapons, he should get +1A in close combat!

But the FAQ does clarify what exactly counts as a single or two-handed weapon so I do believe you are correct that this would be more properly labeled as a clarification.


Thanks!

Yak,

Question on plasma weapons. Does the get hot rule mean that two saves will be made in 1's or 2's are rolled or is it one save if it gets hot on a 1 or 2. Hope the question is clear. The UK FAQ back a few months ago had it as one save and I was curious if it was talked about in the group. Also the FAQ is absolutely great. You guys are a credit to the game.

Well "free shot" is about as ambiguous as it gets. Some questions, like, "does my "free shot" with my plasma pistol mean I get a shot, even if the unit is 18" away?" are resolved easily by common sense (no, since a pistol can only physically shoot in this game out to 12"). But questions like "does line of sight count" for a unit that is "deep striking"?" and "free shot is singular; can rapid fire weapons fire twice?" and even "what if the unit moved in their last turn?" are harder to answer, and could really go either way. What about vehicles? Do they only get to shoot one weapon system, or all weapons? The rule is actually quite ambiguous, because it deals with all unit types and variable range and such.

As far as how you ruled, I just wish you weren't so eager to follow player majority and instead consider that some of your "rule changes" work against already weak armies, effectively excluding players from coming (and expecting to do well). After all, I would expect that players that come DO read the rules, because I'd be pissed if I got across the table from someone who wasn't considerate enough to check the event rules and now has to spend a half hour checking the pertinent stuff, not to mention the more in-depth stuff...

"rule changes" work against already weak armies, effectively excluding players from coming (and expecting to do well).

In both posts you manage to make a some broad sweeping comments with providing any concrete examples to make your case. Could you provide a case for your assertion above? Seems to me that all codexes have a viable build, and I personally don't see how any of our rulings have made any army "unplayable".

Was it intentional that your land raider crusaders only carry 7 terminators? 15/2=7.5...

You nerfed the Psycannon (unnecessary?...I asked Yak about this here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/46258.page#top)

Your "clarification" of the Guardian Platform rules still allows for the abuse, to a lesser extent, and misses the foundation against doing so in the rules (wargear on a model cannot be "passed" to another model)

And mystic "free shots" should probably be clarified.

And, while simultaneously diregarding the RAW on psycannons, needlessly weakening already overpriced wargear, you allow a techmarine on a bike or in terminator armor while quoting RAW as your precedent! These last two ideas I know players in my area find reprehensible and silly. AND Techmarines don't need the help.

I truly appreciate all the effort you put into this, but some of the changes seem so...ill informed. They're minor, sure, but why make modifications that penalize players for taking diverse yet strategically questionable unit choices?

If you're going to implement a [rule change] and claim that "that's what people will expect" is a little shortsighted, IMO. You have a lot of newcomers this year, and I imagine it'd be pretty frustrating to have someone shove a printed out FAQ in your face and say, "um...you can't do that here." Especially if it weakens unit choice(s) the player has made, expecting what his codex says to be the final word.

EDIT: Adding as I notice more...

You completely nullify the use of Mind War against Imperial Guard heavy weapons, and for some reason change the universal rule that models cannot "swap" wargear, allowing the same potential (yet minor) abuse that you failed to resolve with Guardian platforms.

You disallow star engines from being used on shaken/stunned vehicles, nullifying one of their more practical uses...While simultaneously allowing smoke launchers to be used if a vehicle is stunned or shaken...and if an Eldar Tank has all it's weapons destroyed, has it "voluntarily" given up its ability to fire? I'd hardly call your reasoning objective on these issues...

Why prevent consolidation when you hit the Avatar's fearless bubble? Don't all regrouping units make a consolidation move?

Neural Shredders causing instant death? Even when their mechanic is based on leadership? Do I have to say more?

The Guardian heavy weapon platform and the Guard heavy weapons don't involve any swapping.

warzonekos wrote:Yak,

Question on plasma weapons. Does the get hot rule mean that two saves will be made in 1's or 2's are rolled or is it one save if it gets hot on a 1 or 2. Hope the question is clear. The UK FAQ back a few months ago had it as one save and I was curious if it was talked about in the group. Also the FAQ is absolutely great. You guys are a credit to the game.

Honestly, I don't even understand why this was included in the UKGT. I've never met anyone in a game who has been confused by the rules on this or tried to play it any differently than the RAW (which is any roll of 1 or 2 causes a wound, so two wounds may be caused by one weapon).

We'll get it added into the next revision.

ColonelEllios wrote:Well "free shot" is about as ambiguous as it gets. Some questions, like, "does my "free shot" with my plasma pistol mean I get a shot, even if the unit is 18" away?" are resolved easily by common sense (no, since a pistol can only physically shoot in this game out to 12"). But questions like "does line of sight count" for a unit that is "deep striking"?" and "free shot is singular; can rapid fire weapons fire twice?" and even "what if the unit moved in their last turn?" are harder to answer, and could really go either way. What about vehicles? Do they only get to shoot one weapon system, or all weapons? The rule is actually quite ambiguous, because it deals with all unit types and variable range and such.

I'm confused by your confusion, so please help me understand. When I write "free shot" it is a reference to the Mystic's ability to allow a unit to shoot at deep striking units. All the pertinent information is in the Mystic's rules the only question here is whether the Drop Pod counts as deep striking or not (which by the RAW it does not but most people do play that it does). All the questions you pose are clearly answered (as far as I can tell) by the Mystic's rule. And just so you know the terminology of the "free shot" is taken directly from the Mystic's rules, its not some random term I created.

As far as how you ruled, I just wish you weren't so eager to follow player majority and instead consider that some of your "rule changes" work against already weak armies, effectively excluding players from coming (and expecting to do well). After all, I would expect that players that come DO read the rules, because I'd be pissed if I got across the table from someone who wasn't considerate enough to check the event rules and now has to spend a half hour checking the pertinent stuff, not to mention the more in-depth stuff...

Which is exactly the point of how this FAQ is written. You have read the FAQ and you know how to adjust your game. The person who hasn't read the FAQ is not likely to be the kind of person who plays by the strictest RAW interpretations and will therefore already be playing the way the FAQ has ruled.

I have been to MANY tournaments where the FAQ supports the RAW against how most people play the game and I can safely say that is when you have to bust out the FAQ every 20 minutes to point stuff out to your opponent who hasn't read it.

ColonelEllios wrote:Was it intentional that your land raider crusaders only carry 7 terminators? 15/2=7.5...

If you read the question carefully you will notice that only applies when you are taking a unit with mixed armor. In other cases you use the standard Crusader rules. Someone else pointed this out to me and it will be more clear in the next update.

You nerfed the Psycannon (unnecessary?...I asked Yak about this here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/46258.page#top)

I will post a poll in the YMDC forum and if I am wrong about how the vast majority of players play with the Psycannon then I will change the ruling.

Your "clarification" of the Guardian Platform rules still allows for the abuse, to a lesser extent, and misses the foundation against doing so in the rules (wargear on a model cannot be "passed" to another model).

How does our ruling allow for abuse? And if you have a suggestion on how the ruling should be made, then make it.

And, while simultaneously diregarding the RAW on psycannons, needlessly weakening already overpriced wargear, you allow a techmarine on a bike or in terminator armor, two ideas that I know players in my area find reprehensible and silly. AND Techmarines don't need the help.

Is there any reason why a Techmarine shouldn't be able to take a bike or Terminator armor? If you're saying that it is because you think the majority of players play the opposite way then, again I can run a poll and if we're totally wrong changes can be made.

If you're going to implement a [rule change] and claim that "that's what people will expect" is a little shortsighted, IMO. You have a lot of newcomers this year, and I imagine it'd be pretty frustrating to have someone shove a printed out FAQ in your face and say, "um...you can't do that here." Especially if it weakens unit choice(s) the player has made, expecting what his codex says to be the final word.

As I stated above, I think you're getting things backward. Being the kind of person I am who tends to know all the little rules and exactly what tournament FAQs say I can say from a lot of experience that the people who like to follow the RAW in all cases are exactly the type of people who will have READ this FAQ. The people who don't read FAQs are the people who just play the way everyone else does. I'm not going to say this FAQ will make everything perfect because there always will be people who buck the norms AND don't read the FAQ, but I am confident that for the most part this will make for an easier tournament experience for most players.

You completely nullify the use of Mind War against Imperial Guard heavy weapons, and for some reason change the universal rule that models cannot "swap" wargear, allowing the same potential (yet minor) abuse that you failed to resolve with Guardian platforms.

We are consistent between the two rulings. In both cases you have one weapon that is crewed by two people. We haven't nullified the use of Mind War against these unit types, you just have to kill both crewman (i.e. you can't do it in a single attack). Whether or not IG weapon teams are based together or separately they should play pretty much exactly the same which is the only thing that we have done with the IG ruling.

You disallow "inactive" wraith units to defend themselves in assault, despite the fact that in every other instance of units being incapacitated in some way that they fight on normally (such as stunned dreadnaughts, pinned squads, etc)

Now I'm really confused. The only ruling we made about inactive Wraithlord/Wraithguard is what happens if they don't pile in and when rending attacks are used against them. Their basic rules in the codex don't allow them to move, shoot, assault or attack in close combat and they are hit automatically in close combat. So I'm not sure what you're talking about here.

You disallow star engines from being used on shaken/stunned vehicles, nullifying one of their more practical uses...While simultaneously allowing smoke launchers to be used if a vehicle is stunned or shaken...and if an Eldar Tank has all it's weapons destroyed, has it "voluntarily" given up its ability to fire? I'd hardly call your reasoning objective on these issues...

First of all, the smoke launcher rules specifically state that they may be used while the vehicle is shaken. Second, the Star Engines ruling is going to be looked at (and likely changed) in the next revision. I stated this earlier in this very thread.

Why prevent consolidation when you hit the Avatar's fearless bubble? Don't all regrouping units make a consolidation move?

Because the unit would have already made its fall back move that turn. In all other cases units only regroup before making a fall back move. Basically its stopping a unit from essentially moving twice in one movement phase. It is consistent with the ruling we made about Space Marines who regroup at the start of the turn (they don't get the consolidation move plus their regular move for a total of a 9" move).

Neural Shredders causing instant death? Even when their mechanic is based on leadership? Do I have to say more?

You'd have to use it against a target that has a Ld of 4. What is the issue?

On the wraith units: I forgot the rules while posting. Thus I removed my query, but too late it would seem.

There have been long discussions on the guardian platform rule. To sum up the way I see it: The platform rule states that a model is armed with a weapon. Since a model with a special weapon (I use the analog of a space marine w/ heavy bolter) cannot "swap" that weapon to another model, neither then can a guardian "armed" with the platform gun swap at a later time, unless one of the crew is killed, as detailed by the rule. The long and short of it being that once a gunner fires the weapon, he is the "one" guardian that may use the weapon until such time as a crewman becomes a casualty.

I think your ruling of "keep them within 2" " adds an extraneous qualifier that doesn't need to be there; and fails to address the point that the question can be resolved by looking at the core rules as I detailed above, as well as still allowing possible abuses with some unique terrain scenarios. And while yes, you were consistent in the ruling between platforms and IG weapon teams, both of your rulings are flawed in this basic precept. Saying that one of the weapon team retains his las rifle, and then later saying that he can "switch" to the heavy weapon, without precedent in the rules (as there is with the platform entry), once again flies in the face of the written rule.

Mystics: Okay, I rescind that one. I think there is a possible source of confusion on what exactly a "free shot" subject to the "normal shooting rules" means, but maybe this isn't an issue for most players. I'm trying to poke holes in your boat, to help you ensure that it's watertight.

On psycannons: I don't doubt that most players don't realize that psycannons are only supposed to allow armor saves, since most people don't own a Demonhunters codex. That said, my persistence on this point questions your basis of trying to rule the way "most players play." I just don't think it's a proper way to approach something like this, especially when it treads on the toes of forces that are already underdogs. Or, in other words, catering to players who just "play the way everyone else plays," in a tournament environment, is not something I would choose to encourage. I was trying to impart that, when you do something like this, you have the opportunity to enforce closer adhesion t the rules in general as well as set right some common misconceptions, rather than reinforce the error of the majority. Furthermore, your ruling concerning psycannons was based in part on the fact that the rule detailed in the armory does not match the rule detailed in the summary. The summary being the well-known area of most common typos from GW's development department, I think that the basis for your ruling is seriously flawed.

On the neural shredder: That's my point? Why make a useless ruling founded upon an innaccurate assumption? The neural shredder's mechanic is based upon leadership, and thus has no interaction with the instant death rule, ever.

The frustrating this for me is that you've done a fantastic job overall of ruling the way the wrote of the rules is supposed to work, or for obvious game balance issues and other conflicts (like fleeting jetbikes/skyboards). However, in other areas, with seemingly no indication of why, you rule arbitrarily, sometimes in the direct face of RAW, as in the case of psycannons. That irks me.

I see at least two questions you might want to add to the FAQ. First is whether or not you will be allowing Grey Knight Terminators to use True Grit and second is whether or not the Remnants special rule allows an Imperial Guard Platoon to go over five squads.

Ghaz wrote:I see at least two questions you might want to add to the FAQ. First is whether or not you will be allowing Grey Knight Terminators to use True Grit and second is whether or not the Remnants special rule allows an Imperial Guard Platoon to go over five squads.

RB.74.01 Answers the Grey Knight question I believe.


I have never heard that remnants question before. Do you find that comes up often?

I hate to nitpick, but it's really starting to bother me. You spelled "Adepticon" wrong in the thread topic.

Heh, sorry about that. I was reaaallly tired at the time.

Nothing pops out at me as being suspect. But I still wanted to chime in and say congrats on putting together a fantastic document. Both the idea and the execution deserve to be lauded.

After looking over this FAQ extensively, I do believe a lot of work went into it. It is very complete and leaves virtually no stone unturned.

However, I do feel that a lot of what is in there is poor. Heaps of answers are changes as opposed to clarifications or RAW. To me this says that the authors took it upon themselves to change the rules of the game.

This is not too much of an issue in its self. The rules may or may not benefit the game overall. The troubling part is that it appears that many changes are made more based on feeling than logic, and perhaps for gain.

Now that statement may sound strange, but consider. The rules committee does not appear to be unbiased. I say this as members will be playing in the events. This alone gives them an advantage. Rules can be changed to suit there armies or play styles, and this will be a foreboding question on the backs of many gamers minds, especially if any such members win awards.

By having participants judge, the event becomes in question. Participants should not be on a project as important as the main FAQ.

So your proposing that they wrote a massive 88 page FAQ with the intent on modifying the rules to fit there army?

Since Yak forbids me from flaming you mercilessly, I would suggest you come up with some damn good examples that support your theory.

You want to disagree with some of the FAQ? Fine. State your concerns. But to suggest that the whole thing is some massive conspiracy to create small advantages for the writers is just ridiculous.

Concerned Gamer:

I appreciate your concern, but that's a pretty serious charge you've leveled at us (and me).

I do fully admit that I will be playing in at least one 40K tournament at Adepticon (the team tournie) and perhaps more. However, this FAQ is in use for all of the 40K tournaments throughout the weekend. That means if you wanted someone to write a FAQ and not gain any advantage you'd have to find around 5 people who are really passionate about 40K to the point where they know the rules and then they'd have to voluntarily not play in any of the 40K events the whole weekend.

I just don't think you will be likely to find those people at a FAN run tournament (where we are not getting paid). I would honestly say it took me roughly 300+ hours (if not more) to write and edit this FAQ. If you truly think that I did all of that with the express purpose of winning games at Adepticon (even subconsciously) then I tip my hat to you sir and say good day.

Also please remember that the council is made up of several people who are playing in differing tournaments with different armies. It would be pretty difficult for all of us to consensus about how to rule a particular rule to our own "advantage" since we would theoretically be striving for different goals.


As for the logic vs. reason claim of the rulings: I've said it before and I'll say it again. You CANNOT have a FAQ that is based solely on the RAW. If you did, the games, and therefore the tournament would be effectively unplayable.

So at some point in EVERY FAQ personal opinion and bias is used, period. With no exceptions. The only question is where and how you draw the line. In the case of this FAQ (as opposed to any I've ever seen) is that we've actually come out and admitted where we were changing the rules as opposed to just making a ruling as if we know what is right and what is wrong.

Concerned_Gamer wrote:After looking over this FAQ extensively, I do believe a lot of work went into it. It is very complete and leaves virtually no stone unturned.

However, I do feel that a lot of what is in there is poor. Heaps of answers are changes as opposed to clarifications or RAW. To me this says that the authors took it upon themselves to change the rules of the game.

This is not too much of an issue in its self. The rules may or may not benefit the game overall. The troubling part is that it appears that many changes are made more based on feeling than logic, and perhaps for gain.

Now that statement may sound strange, but consider. The rules committee does not appear to be unbiased. I say this as members will be playing in the events. This alone gives them an advantage. Rules can be changed to suit there armies or play styles, and this will be a foreboding question on the backs of many gamers minds, especially if any such members win awards.

By having participants judge, the event becomes in question. Participants should not be on a project as important as the main FAQ.

I second YakFace in saying that you would never get an FAQ of this scope from players who weren't passionate about the game, and they are exactly the kind of people who want to play at Adepticon. (Let's face it, GW have never done an FAQ anywhere as good as this one.)

Perhaps you could quantify the number of answers in terms of clarifications vs changes, and point out the changes that benefit specific armies. That would allow other players to make some objective assessment of the level of bias in the document.

Personally I doubt there is any. Leaving aside the question of the committee's honour, it is hard to see how they could make changes that only benefit themselves and not other players.

Kilkrazy wrote:
I second YakFace in saying that you would never get an FAQ of this scope from players who weren't passionate about the game, and they are exactly the kind of people who want to play at Adepticon. (Let's face it, GW have never done an FAQ anywhere as good as this one.)

I disagree!

GW could just pay people to do this.

Oh well.

malfred wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
I second YakFace in saying that you would never get an FAQ of this scope from players who weren't passionate about the game, and they are exactly the kind of people who want to play at Adepticon. (Let's face it, GW have never done an FAQ anywhere as good as this one.)

I disagree!

GW could just pay people to do this.

Oh well.

In theory that is true.

"Concerned_Gamer" what rules issues do you have specifically? I agree with the others above that this FAQ. It is written by a team of individuals who I know at times have some fairly contentious debates with rulings coming down to a 3-2 decision. I also know from personal experience with past rulings (for example at AdeptiCon) that some of judge's rulings have changed from the rulings that were made at the time of the call at previous events. They have proven to me and the Toledo group that they are more than willing to listen and adjust as appropriate. The development of this FAQ is not taken lightly by any of them and they hold to a high standard of honor and integrity when making a ruling.

If any FAQ team member drops from events to avoid this stigma, we all have lost and do not deserve to play in the event. This group is comprised of solid players with a high level of integrity and for me personally, any victory would be tainted in not having them play. I will personally drag them into the convention hall to play even if I have to treat them like Bernie (ref: Weekend at Bernie's for all of you youngins).

As far as RAW is concerned, I reiterate YAK - going completely by RAW destroys the game. For example: the unassaultable unit due to the 1" rule. Try playing for the final position in a major event and having a judge rule that you can't charge a unit with a character. Why - because a friendly unit behind is in base to base and the bases are 25 mm, which is 0.04" smaller then 1". That's pure RAW and also pure stupidity.

The example above is why having a comprehensive FAQ (that does not always go by RAW in all cases) is a great thing. Especially if it is out 2 1/2 months before the main event where everyone can view it.

Side note to all tournament organizers: Please consider adopting this document as a standard for your events. Even if it is in the short term until 5th edition. This will bring a level of consistency to rulings for everyone and allow for players to have more fun with knowing what rules to expect.

I read Concerned_Gamer's post and got the POINT of it not as an attack or accusation but as a valid observation.

If participants write what will be considered ruling judgements of how a tournament is conducted without universal acceptance of the changes made by ALL participants, there could be a legitimate appearance of bias by the other participants.

I certainly wouldn't accuse anyone of intending or manipulating the rules to thier specific advantage & I don't think Concerned_Gamer was exactly doing that either. If RAW is changed by an F.A.Q. for a tournament then in my opinion the organiser of the tournament is doing that specifically to guide the play of the tournament in a certain direction or perhaps away froma certain direction. Nothing is wrong with that.

What becomes suspect (in appearance) is when the guide for the direction of play in a tournament is written by participants in same said tournament without universal (or at least majority acceptance) of those changes.

I have some experience in tournament & campaign design and have found that asking all or a majority of the participants to approve of changes to basic RAW always works better than NOT asking first. No matter how well written, consistent or researched the changes may be.

I hope this can be seen as also NOT an attack on Yak or the others who produced the document, they have stated in there that rules changes are made and it is to be used universally for multiple weekend events & not a specific purpose only. I don't think they are tyring to get one over on anybody, I also don't believe that they could possibly get everyone's consensus on the F.A.Q. before playing with it...

May I suggest a questionaire for eachj participant to fill out where they may comment on the F.A.Q. and rulings? If you find a trend toward dislike or abuse of certain items you could then change or omit those for the next go round. Make the F.A.Q. a living document that players may invest in!

Concerned_Gamer wrote:After looking over this FAQ extensively, I do believe a lot of work went into it. It is very complete and leaves virtually no stone unturned.

However, I do feel that a lot of what is in there is poor. Heaps of answers are changes as opposed to clarifications or RAW. To me this says that the authors took it upon themselves to change the rules of the game.

This is not too much of an issue in its self. The rules may or may not benefit the game overall. The troubling part is that it appears that many changes are made more based on feeling than logic, and perhaps for gain.

Now that statement may sound strange, but consider. The rules committee does not appear to be unbiased. I say this as members will be playing in the events. This alone gives them an advantage. Rules can be changed to suit there armies or play styles, and this will be a foreboding question on the backs of many gamers minds, especially if any such members win awards.

By having participants judge, the event becomes in question. Participants should not be on a project as important as the main FAQ.

Concerned_Gamer,

The slogan on the top of the Adepticon.org Web-site reads... ++ FOR GAMERS, BY GAMERS ++. To the best of my knowledge, this has always been the slogan for Adepticon. Within that spirit, it is wholly right for event organizers to take the field of battle, and test their metal against some of the finest fields that can be assembled. As to your insinuation that the rules clarifications are written to specifically influence the outcome of the games more substantial evidence is needed.

First off, to suggest that people who spend hundreds if not thousands of volunteer hours, need to influence the rules so that they can win a plaque and a couple of box sets does not seem logical. Why not save hundreds of hours and spend $100 bucks?

Secondly, it is an act of passive aggressive cowardice to level an accusation of this magnitude under an anonymous account, without the weight of specific citations of unethical behavior. What rules clarifications benefit what member of the council? Who specifically are you accusing, what are they bringing to Adepticon, and how will they have an unfair advantage based on what is written in the FAQ?

Unfortunately, Character Assassination is very easy on the internet and those who do not have the talent or strength to prepare for war, plan for murder. Hence why a solider is often a hero, and an assassin is often a villain.

Regards,

Chris Mehrstedt <Rhysk>

Rockit wrote:What becomes suspect (in appearance) is when the guide for the direction of play in a tournament is written by participants in same said tournament without universal (or at least majority acceptance) of those changes.

I have some experience in tournament & campaign design and have found that asking all or a majority of the participants to approve of changes to basic RAW always works better than NOT asking first. No matter how well written, consistent or researched the changes may be.

There are many rulings made in this FAQ that were polled or gathered from a lot of different websites and groups on the internet. The FAQ team can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe dakkadakka, warseer and 40Kfightclub are examples of a few of these resources. So in essence, they are working towards a majority leveraging probably the best resource availalbe. While a tournament survey is a good idea - it can not match the feedback that you will receive from these internet resources.

Now for someone to say

Concerned_Gamer wrote:However, I do feel that a lot of what is in there is poor. Heaps of answers are changes as opposed to clarifications or RAW. To me this says that the authors took it upon themselves to change the rules of the game.

Well - that is an attack and shows that this person is not in touch with the overall complication with the rules issues involved. Sure there are going to be rulings that we all do not agree on. But to say "a lot of what is there is poor". Come on now - anyone that is considered to be a true tournament/game veteran knows this is not correct and should have a better understanding than this.

yakface wrote:
I have never heard that remnants question before. Do you find that comes up often?

I've had the discussion online a couple of times. Better safe than sorry and actually have it covered, IMHO.

Hardly anyone fields full squads, but personally I don't care if they have 1 command, 1 remnant, and 5 infantry squads. The remnant is gimped for heavy weapons, so at best you get a drop flamer. Not exactly so overpowering I'd cry at it.

Maybe if I actually saw it even once since the IG codex was released, anywhere...but I never have.

Even in 150-200 man guard armies.

After reading Concerned_Gamer's post I thought it was a bit over the top, but I believe Rockit has a point. I do not believe it is an attack but rather an observation. I know that I have been jaded by several tournaments were "suspicious" things have happened. I am not attacking or even trying to suggest that Yak, who has spent hundreds of hours on what can only be described as a passion of love, is trying to manipulate the system. I believe his intentions are altruistic. But the problem is that there can be doubt, especially with sore losers. Adepticon is for gamers by gamers as Rhysk said, who I had the pleasure of playing in last years Gladiator. And that said, the volunteers are there to better the game, but that can not be said of all participants. In last years Team event, 90 teams, with 4 players was 360 people, plus 150+ for both Gladiator and the RTT meant their over 600 participants, granted many the same. But of those, how many are win at all costs, and how many would be sore losers? I dont know what concerned_gamer's point was, but I do realize that he is right that someone can call foul warranted or not, and a simple accusation against Adepticon could be hurtful to the World's greatest gaming event. I have no solution to a problem that may have been revealed by the aforementioned poster. All I can say is that the gaming community must continue to make Adepticon better and better.

Inquisitor_Malice wrote:

Rockit wrote:What becomes suspect (in appearance) is when the guide for the direction of play in a tournament is written by participants in same said tournament without universal (or at least majority acceptance) of those changes.

I have some experience in tournament & campaign design and have found that asking all or a majority of the participants to approve of changes to basic RAW always works better than NOT asking first. No matter how well written, consistent or researched the changes may be.

There are many rulings made in this FAQ that were polled or gathered from a lot of different websites and groups on the internet. The FAQ team can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe dakkadakka, warseer and 40Kfightclub are examples of a few of these resources. So in essence, they are working towards a majority leveraging probably the best resource availalbe. While a tournament survey is a good idea - it can not match the feedback that you will receive from these internet resources.

I am all for this type of pre-thought and preparation of opinion heading into a task such as this. If that is indeed the foundation of the F.A.Q. and the tournament is better/more well recieved by the players for it then laudes are due.

I thought some of the reactions were a bit over the top, but when something strikes personally it is understandable... I just don't know that it help the forums.

I am certain the task took more than an individual & many hours of thought & probably playing to devise, its intent is on track I've no doubt.

I've gotta support the Adepticon Council Members who helped write the FAQ. As a former Adepticon council member/tournament judge, I have always had faith in their integrity and dedication to putting out a fair ruling, otherwise I would have never agreed to be a judge.

They've put a lot of effort into this so that players from all over the world can all be on the same page. Adepticon puts on a world class event, of incomparable quality, and I know it will be for years to come.

Dan B (DyneDenethor)

Concerned_Gamer wrote:
However, I do feel that a lot of what is in there is poor. Heaps of answers are changes as opposed to clarifications or RAW. To me this says that the authors took it upon themselves to change the rules of the game.

Having played in few tournaments and even run several myself. Having a common reference for rulings is a create comfort as there is some commonality to those rules that are fuzzy or just plain confusing. Yes, some of the rules have been changed and duly noted when and why that has occurred. Do I agree with all the rulings? No. Will I use it for the tournaments I rule. Yep. Bottom line, if you don't like the FAQ don't use it or play in the tournament that uses it.

It's always easier to criticize then to create. Instead of saying it's a piece of gak show where there are deficencies to help make it a better product.

I completely disagree with Concerned_Gamer and Rockit. There can be no room for doubt as to the intent of these rulings. You show up to play, have a rule go completely against the way you have played for years and then you can cry foul, but to do so when the rules are presented 2 1/2 months before is pure jealousy.

I have been a player and event organiser at Adepticon in the past and have also been an FAQ author for Adepticon in the past. Before this comprehensive tomb, we had a serious of random questions that were submitted to us from players. The questions were incomplete and during the course of a game I was called over many times to settle a rules 'interpretation' from two people, usually from different parts of the country, who played the rule in different ways. Invariably the ruling would severely hamper the situation for one of the players and in essence someone would be screwed.

Now we have an exhaustive exercise that is published months in advance to give everyone the opportunity to know how a judge will rule at these events. If anything this smacks of the highest form of integrity for how can any insider gain an advantage with the rules when everyone knows them.

I agree with Chris, Dan and Greg and in my coarse rules style I would say if you don't like the rules then don't show up. I would rather have 500 gamers and the biggest 40k weekend on the world than have 501 gamers and biggest 40k weekend in the world.

Exactly, dont like the rules dont show up. Hopefuly everyone follows this. Adepticon is the greatest event period.

Stelek wrote:Hardly anyone fields full squads, but personally I don't care if they have 1 command, 1 remnant, and 5 infantry squads. The remnant is gimped for heavy weapons, so at best you get a drop flamer. Not exactly so overpowering I'd cry at it.

Maybe if I actually saw it even once since the IG codex was released, anywhere...but I never have.

Even in 150-200 man guard armies.

It only takes one time to cause a problem thiugh. As I said, better safe than sorry. It's not like it's a major undertaking to add a ruling to the FAQ.

Allright I've gotten the time to look at more of the FAQ. Comments in italics.

I think my most important comment should be first:

Who are the donkey-caves you play with, council of FAQ? I mean, I've been going to tournaments a long time now all around the world and I've never even contemplated the kind of audacious bs rules lawyering that would require 90% of the answers in this FAQ--let alone actually seen anyone try such jackassery and not get kicked in the head. I'm not denigrating your work, but it seems like you've answered questions that only a bunch of donkey-caves would actually make you answer.

========================================================

So, I take it that Armored Company fielding Kroot Mercenaries are abusive and ruling the tournament scene? Rhetorical, this 'answer' amused me greatly. Is it clarified somewhere that Witchhunters that take Penitent Engines instead of Exorcists must be given maximum sportsmanship scores? Would seem to fit. Ok I'll stop picking on ya yak, unless there's something else really funny in here. I keep laughing at every sentence past page 31. lol

========================================================

BT.42A.01/BT.42B.01 – Q: If a Land Raider (or
Crusader) is transporting a mix of models in Power
Armor and Terminator Armor; how many models in
total can they carry?
A: The basic Land Raider may transport 10 models total,
the Crusader may carry 15. Models in Terminator armor
count as two models for this purpose. Other types of
models may also be transported and count as a single
model unless specified otherwise [rules change].

Interesting. How is this a rules change, exactly?

=======================================================

BA.06T.01 – Q: Can a Psychic Hood block a force
weapon’s instant death ability?
A: Yes [clarification].

So, you questioned me when I said no one reads the BBB force weapon description; but this is in the FAQ. Why would it need to be clarified if they read the BBB?

=======================================================

BA.26C.04 – Q: Do Inquisitorial Mystics allow free
shots at units arriving by Drop Pod?
A: Yes. The shooting is resolved after the Drop Pod lands
and the passengers disembark. Either the Drop Pod or
the disembarked unit may be the targeted, but not both
[rules change].

Why are you overriding the GW rules in this instance? Both are seperate units, and eligible to be shot at.

========================================================

CSM.25B.01 – Q: Do bike models with the Mark of
Tzeentch gain +1 to the invulnerable save
provided by turbo-boosting?
A: Yes [clarification].

Is this clarified for the stupid people? +1 to invulnerable saves needs to be clarified...why?

=========================================================

CSM.48.02 –Q: Does Kharn’s “Blessing of the
Blood God” ignore persistent psychic abilities (like
Psychic Scream or Veil of Tears)?
A: Yes. The psychic ability still functions, however Kharn
(and any unit he is joined to) simply ignores any and all
effects of the ability [rules change]. Units joined to Kharn
gain no additional protection against Force weapon
attacks directed at the unit instead of Kharn.
Ref: APOC.91D.02, DH.18C.01, ELD.28B.01, ELD.49A.

Sorry, why the meddling? IC abilities don't transfer to units, it's a guiding principle of the Warhammer system. Kharns ability to nullify crossing into his unit is bs all the way. By the way, if you'd kindly read the Sisters of Battle book and see how force weapons cannot kill them; I'd like to pass the ability on to my DW Librarian, oh and make the squad itself immune to psychic powers on a 5+. That's not in the FAQ, can you add it please? Meddle not.

=======================================================

DH.18C.01 – Q: Does a unit with a Null Rod ignore
persistent psychic abilities (like Psychic Scream or
Veil of Tears)?
A: Yes. The psychic ability still functions, however the
unit with the Null Rod simply ignores any and all effects
of the ability [RAW].

See, the Null Rod actually SAYS this. Kharn is not a NULL ROD for any 'unit' he chooses to join because the text that says this isn't there nor is it even remotely implied.

Don't want to be affected by Lash? Doom? Don't put Kharn in with a unit!

========================================================


CSM.54.03 – Q: Can Typhus use his Force weapon
ability on multiple models in the same assault
phase?
A: Yes, but note that the instant-kill ability is not tested
for until after all wounds inflicted by Typhus are allocated
to enemy models [RAW].

Sadly, this isn't RAW. RAW prohibits using a force weapon more than once. Typhus, unlike Mephiston, does not have this restriction loosened. He is simply allowed to use the force power *once* and still use either Wind or Rot. He is still a psyker limited to one power per turn with the exception he may also use his force weapon in addition to the other powers. That's the RAW for this rule.

=====================================================


DH.18E.01 – Q: Do Psycannons ignore cover
saves?
A: No, just invulnerable saves [rules change].

This is *NOT* a rules change. This is the RAW.

=====================================================

DH.28A.01 – Q: Does the Callidus Assassin’s
Neural Shredder count as a single or two-handed
weapon?
A: Single-handed [rules change].

It's a rules change? I guess you've never seen the model. Since it isn't a pistol weapon, why's it matter? Since she has no other pistol or CCW, why's it matter?

======================================================

DH.28B.01 – Q: Can the Eversor charge in the
Assault phase after firing its pistol?
A: Yes [rules change].

I'm confused--are people claiming 'Fast Shot' prevents the assassin from charging because it fired a pistol weapon twice using a special rule? Hilarious!!

======================================================

DA.35B.02 – Q: Can models disembarking from a
Drop Pod assault on the same turn?
A: No [rules change].

Sorry, this is a rules change? Who's assaulting out of Drop Pods?! lol are the Dark Angels players getting feisty?

=====================================================

ELD.24C.01 – Q: If an Eldar unit finishes its fall
back move within 12” of a friendly Avatar (or he
moves within 12” of a unit that is falling back)
does the unit immediately regroup?
A: Yes, the unit immediately regroups but does not make
a consolidation move [rules change].

Since this breaks the RAW, why are you doing this? The Avatar is not a Synapse Creature.

I don't see you giving this wonderful ability extension to other armies with similar abilities, so this just looks like meddling.

======================================================

ELD.34.01 -- Q: How are multiple shots from the
Exarch’s Tempest Launcher resolved?
A: resolve them as a multiple barrage (rulebook page
32), as if they were fired by separate weapons in the unit
[rules change].

This makes no sense. Multiple barrage is how it should be worked out, with the first template being the center point and the second scattering off it. Why add the extra line? It doesn't mean anything in the case of multiple barrages. Is this a clarification for stupid people?

======================================================

ELD.39.02 -- Q: Can either Heavy Weapon
crewman fire the weapon regardless of where
they are in the unit?
A: Yes, the position of the gun is immaterial. Either
crewman (but not both at the same time) may fire the
weapon [RAW]. However, both team members must
remain within 2” of each other during the game where
possible [rules change].

This isn't what Phil Kelly had in mind when he wrote the Codex. He doesn't play that way either. Why are you changing it?

======================================================

ELD.45B.01 -- Q: Do vibro cannons have to fire in a
straight line?
A: Yes [rules change].

Sigh. Who's the jackass asked this question? Who thinks they can get away with firing a vibro cannon in circles?

======================================================

ELD.45B.03 -- Q: Do individual vibro cannons add
their Strength to the battery even if they miss? Do
vehicles suffer a maximum of one glancing hit per
battery?
A: All cannons in the battery after the first add +1
Strength regardless of whether they hit or not [RAW].
Enemy vehicles suffer a maximum of one glancing hit per
battery [rules change].

The second line is RAW, not a rules change.

=======================================================

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

Actually this is a rules change, not a clarification. An artillery unit that has a line drawn to an artillery piece would both lose that gun immediately AND suffer D6 hits. It qualifies for both, not just one. This rule you've written would only apply if you hit the gunners or draw through the unit without drawing LOS through a gun.

========================================================

ELD.46.01B/ELD.47.01B -- Q: What happens if
Inactive Wraithguard/Wraithlords have all of their
combatants killed by friendly models and the
enemy is unable to Pile Into them?
A: An Inactive unit that finds itself not locked in combat
after Pile-In moves are completed no longer counts as
being part of the combat [rules change].

This is RAW, actually, not a rules change.

=========================================================

ELD.49A.01 -- Q: Can Veil of Tears ever be nullified
or cancelled?
A: No. See RB.52.07.

See 'Kharn can nullify this. So can a Null Rod'. So which is it?

==========================================================

ELD.60A.01/ELD.60B.01/ELD.60C.01 -- Q: Can
Farseers, Warlocks and Autarchs Fleet while
mounted on a Jetbike, and in the case of an
Autarch, while equipped with a Jump Generator?
A: No in all cases [rules change].

So, why can't a Autarch fleet with the Jump Generator? I noticed you've left out Wings, but where Jetbikes cannot fleet (per Phil Kelly) there's no reason to restrict the Autarch with a Jump Generator from fleeting. With Wings or with a Jump Generator, he's still Jump Infantry but in your opinion one means no fleeting and the other does? Meddling again.

======================================================================

ELD.65A.01 -- Q: Do Shining Spears count as
having “Eldar” Jetbikes?
A: Yes [rules change].

Hilarious.

======================================================

IG.GEN.01C – Q: With a Heavy Weapon team, if
the model with the Heavy Weapon is killed does
the other guy pick it up?
A: If both models are mounted on the same base and
one is killed, mark the base to show one model is dead.
The other model discards his lasgun and takes over the
Heavy Weapon [rules change].
If the models are based separately, both team members
must remain within 2” of each other during the game
where possible. If the model with the Heavy Weapon is
killed, swap the position of the two models and remove
the team model with the lasgun as the casualty [rules
change]. This applies even against attacks that target a
specific model.

Well I'm not sure if this is a rules change, but this does give IG limited protection against torrent of fire. There are consequences for meddling.

=======================================================

IG.40.01 – Q: Do Sanctioned Psykers roll for their
psychic ability before or after being assigned to
their unit via the “Advisors” rule?
A: Before assigning them to their unit [clarification].

Hmmm, this is a rules change. I don't disagree with it, since Sanctioned Psykers are so horrible in the first place.

GW doesn't have 'pre-game' rolls anymore, if you haven't noticed. Everything is done either during or after deployment is complete.

=======================================================

IG.41B.01 – Q: Does a unit with an attached
Commissar use his Ld10 for Leadership tests even
if he hasn’t executed an Officer or Sergeant in the
unit?
A: His Ld value is not used. However, if the Commissar
executes the Officer or Sergeant (via the “Summary
Execution” special rule) he then takes command and the
unit uses his Ld while he lives [rules change].

This is RAW, not a rules change.

======================================================

IG.41B.03 – Q: If a Commissar uses Summary
Execution to prevent a unit from falling back out
of combat, is the unit then subject to ‘No Retreat!’
wounds if they are outnumbered?
A: Yes [clarification].

This is a rules change. Commissar led units are not fearless. If this rule is applied to IG, it should also be applied to inquisitor retinues and Tyranids under Synapse control.
Meddle not.

======================================================

IG.56F.02 – Q: If a unit has both the Jungle
Fighters and Mechanized doctrines can the unit
infiltrate if not deployed inside their Chimera?
A: No, the unit cannot infiltrate if it has a dedicated
transport [rules change].

This is RAW.

=======================================================

IG.56F.03 – Q: If a unit has both the Jungle
Fighters and Light Infantry doctrines can they
take both a Heavy Flamer and a Sniper rifle?
A: No [rules change].

This is also RAW. You cannot replace 1 heavy weapon with 2.

======================================================

IG.56F.01 – Q: Is the Jungle Fighters Heavy
Flamer upgrade available to any Guard Infantry
unit, or just regular Infantry Platoon squads?
A: Just to Infantry Platoon squads [rules change].

Why the meddling? It says Guard Infantry in the Codex.

======================================================

KM.02.04 – Q: Is the +1 Initiative bonus for ‘Fast
Reflexes’ counted when resolving a Sweeping
Advance?
A: Yes [rules change].

Dunno if I'd call this a rules change, all of the Kroot merc bonuses modify profile by RAW.

======================================================

NEC.15I.01 – Q: Can the Veil of Darkness be used
to teleport a Falling Back unit? What if the Lord
with the Veil is Falling Back himself?
A: Veil of Darkness may not be used by a Lord who is
Falling Back and may not be used to teleport a unit who
is Falling Back [rules change].

Swooping Hawks can skyleap when falling back. Isn't this the same effect, but really just ends up being classified as 'meddling'?

Sigh. I see alot of fething over of armies for no reason without also fething over other armies that do the exact same thing.

======================================================

NEC.20A.01 – Q: Does a Tomb Spyder w/ Scarab
Swarms count as a “Large Target” for Target
Priority? Do they have to start off the table in a
mission using the Escalation rule?
A: Yes and Yes [clarification].
Ref: RB.19.02, RB.84E.03

This is a clarification for the stupid people, isn't it? TS are MC. Seems silly to cover such minutiae without actually requiring players to read the rules. If they know what a large target is, why don't they know what a MC is?

=====================================================

NEC.20A.02 – Q: How does a Tomb Spyder with
Scarab Swarms work with the “Vulnerable to
Blasts/Templates” and “Small Targets” USRs?
A: Since they have differing Armor saves, all wounding
hits are allocated via the mixed armor rules. Only the
wounding hits allocated to the Scarab’s Armor type are
doubled for “Vulnerable to Blasts/Templates” and gain
the +1 cover save bonus for “Small Targets” [rules
change].

This isn't a rules change. This is RAW. Mixed armor and the torrent of fire rules covers this.

======================================================

NEC.21.02 – Q: If a Necron unit teleports through
the Monolith’s portal do the unit’s damaged
Necrons get to re-roll their We’ll Be Back rolls
even if they are no longer within 6” of a Necron
model of the same type?
A: All damaged Necron models associated (see:
NEC.13.01) with the unit that teleported through the
Monolith’s Portal may re-roll failed We’ll Be Back rolls
provided they were eligible to make (and failed) them at
the start of that turn. Necrons repaired in this way are
placed back in coherency with their unit emerging from
the portal [rules change].

Hmmm. Again, sounds like explaining RAW for noobs.

=============================================

NEC.30.01 – Q: Do Fearless units that Fall Back
due to the Deceiver’s “Deceive” special rule
automatically regroup?
A: No, they must regroup normally [RAW].

You're kidding with this bs, right? Fearless models suddenly become regular troops isn't bad enough, they stay that way? Meddling.

===========================================================

ORK.31A.01 – Q: Are saves allowed against the
wound caused by rolling a ‘1’ for the ‘Waaagh!’
fleet roll?
A: Armor and Invulnerable saves are allowed
[clarification].

Since no mention is made of cover saves, I'm assuming none are allowed? Not that the Codex says anything either way.

============================================================

You're killing me with this FAQ.

RB.12.01 – Q: Are more than 10 Attacks possible?
A: Yes, more then 10 Attacks are allowed [rules change].

And:

ORK.31B.01 – Q: Does an Ork Mob with more than
10 models count as having a Ld greater than 10?
A: No. 10 is the highest characteristic value possible
[RAW].

You can't say both in the same g-ddamn FAQ!

=======================================

ORK.48B.01 – Q: Can Deffkoptas Turbo Boost
during their Scout move?
A: No [rules change].

See, something that follows precedence and makes sense.

=======================================

ORK.55D.01 – Q: Does a Deff Rolla affect enemy
vehicles? Does a unit that successfully stops the
Battlewagon’s Tank Shock suffer any hits?
A: Any vehicle forced to give way to the Battlewagon
takes D6 S10 hits against the armor value being struck by
the Rolla [clarification]. Any unit that causes the
Battlewagon to stop its Tank Shock does not suffer any
hits [rules change].

Hmm. Glad I'm not using any, since this is a bs rules change directly contradicted by the RAW.

Phil Kelly intended for this to happen, so why are you changing it?

=======================================

ORK.61A.01 – Q: If Zogwort rolls for power
weapon attacks while in close combat, do they
combine with his poisoned attacks (so that he
wounds on a ‘2+’ and ignores armor saves)?
A: Special close combat attacks may not be combined.
The Ork player must pick one to use each round of
combat [RAW].

Funny, this was intended. His higher cost reflects this. Meddling again.

===============================================

ORK.63E.01 – Q: If Zagstruk executes an Ork to
pass a morale check after losing combat is the unit
subject to ‘No Retreat!’ wounds if they are
outnumbered?
A: Yes [clarification].

Same problem here as with the Commissar. The rules don't exist, so why are you adding them?

===================================================

ORK.93I.01 – Q: If a vehicle with a Stikkbomb
Chukka is destroyed (by driving through a
minefield, for example) and its embarked
passengers charge into combat the ensuing
Assault phase do they still benefit from the
Chukka?
A: No [rules change].

More meddling. If Land Raiders weren't invulnerable to minefields, I'm sure this would have been applied to them as well, right?

====================================================

SM.21C.01 – Q: Does the Games Workshop online
rulebook FAQ ruling regarding Deep Striking onto
friendly models also apply to Drop Pods (do
friendly models count as impassable terrain)?
A: Yes, treat friendly models as impassable terrain when
a Drop Pod arrives [rules change].

This is RAW, not a rules change. Drop Pods don't 'Drop' they 'Deep Strike'.

====================================================

SM.24A.01/SM.24J.01 – Q: Can a model be
equipped with both a Space Marine Bike and a
Jump Pack?
A: No, it is one or the other [rules change].

Seriously, someone asked this? Did anyone actually model a bike and a jump pack on a marine? I'd love to see it.

=====================================================

SM.40A.01/SM.40B.01 – Q: If a Land Raider (or
Crusader) is transporting a mix of models in Power
Armor and Terminator Armor; how many models in
total can they carry?
A: The basic Land Raider may transport 10 models total,
the Crusader may carry 15. Models in Terminator armor
count as two models for this purpose. Models in any
other type of armor besides Terminator armor may be
transported and count as a single model [rules change].

Rules change? Since when? This is RAW.

========================================================

SM.49.01 – Q: When Tigirius uses “Fear of the
Darkness”, does the Hood of Hellfire double its
area of effect up to 24 inches?
A: Yes [rules change].

This isn't a rules change, this is RAW.

=======================================================

SW.08A.01 – Q: Can Space Wolves take two
different types of Venerable Dreadnoughts in their
army, one from their codex and others from the
Space Marine codex?
A: Yes [RAW].

I guess I'd have to see a SW player try to take two Ven Dreads.

Since the SM Codex says you can only have 1 ven dread and the SW Codex also says 0-1, where's the RAW supporting this bs?

I don't see any SM trait choices available to SW players.

====================================================

TAU.25A.01 – Q: If a unit with Advanced
Stabilization Systems also has drones, can the
Battlesuit(s) in the unit still use the Stabilization
special rules? Do the drones also gain the
Stabilization benefit?
A: The Battlesuits in the unit may utilize the Advanced
Stabilization System, any drones in the unit do not [rules
change].

This is RAW.

====================================================

TAU.30E.01 – Q: Can mounted Gun Drones on a
vehicle still fire if the vehicle is Shaken, Stunned,
moved over 12” or isn’t allowed to fire its weapons
for any other reason?
A: No, Gun Drones mounted on a vehicle may only fire if
the vehicle is allowed to fire at least one weapon [rules
change].

So where is the rule prohibiting passengers from firing from shaken vehicles for all non-Tau armies? Right, not included. So this is a specific nerf, and just more meddling.

=======================================================

TAU.26F.01 – Q: Can a model with a Drone
Controller take two of the same type of Drone?
A: Yes [rules change].

RAW. The rules for the controller are quite clear on this.

===============================================

TYR.31B.03A – Q: When “The Shadow in the
Warp” is in play are “Perils of the Warp” effects
nullified for the Tyranid player, or just his
opponent?
A: Just his opponent [rules change].

Meddling. The warp doesn't exist for the OTHER player, but Chaos awaits for the Nids? Come on.

================================================

WH.18.01A – Q: Can persistent Psychic abilities
(such as Psychic Scream or Veil of Tears) be
nullified by the Sororitas ‘Shield of Faith’ special
rule?
A: No. See RB.52.07.

I wish Kharn was in my Sisters army, so the rules conundrum caused would explode the universe.

====================================================================

WH.18.02 – If a unit has Multiple
Blasts/Templates and wants to use the Divine
Guidance Act of Faith, how exactly does this work?
A: In this case, the player may determine how many ‘hits’
they will get from their ‘regular’ shooting plus their first
Blast/Template and then decide if they wish to use Divine
Guidance. If the Act is used, the remaining
Blasts/Templates also benefit from it [rules change].

This is RAW. By the way, name the Sisters unit with blasts please.

==============================================

My own question: How do you consider Dark Eldar weapons on vehicles to be mounted? I consider them pintle mounted and can fire in any direction.

================================================

Well, I'm burned out reading all of that.

I guess my problems are this:

Not following GW precedent.
Meddling in really silly gak.
Not making rules changes across the board.
Answering way too many stupid player/asshat player questions/power gaming attempts needing deflection.

I hope you don't take any of this personally, yak. It isn't aimed at you or anyone in particular.

The reason for an FAQ list is to answer frequently asked questions no matter how stupid they may be.

If players keep asking these questions it means the official published sources do not clarify them properly.

The purpose of the list is to provide answers. You may disagree about whether the answers are RAW or clarification or changes, however the point is they are specified so players can be sure they are all playing to the same rules.

If anybody is worried about the Adepticon FAQ being biased, they probably haven't travelled to an RTT with a wicked "homer" advantage. You know, the kind where the Judge (who also is playing) will pretty much rule however his buddies want, even if you're showing them text in the rulebook otherwise. Obviously Adepticon has always had better judges then the guys at "Bubba's Gamin' Shack," but a judge can only make decisions based on 1) what he knows about the rules, and 2) what he feels is fair.

Because of this, as a gamer who wants to know what kind of rulings to expect, it's better to get potentially bad news up front then later. I don't think you'll find anybody who agrees with 100% of these rulings. I don't think you'd find anybody who agrees with 100% of the rules!

More than anything else, the willingness of Yak and the others to explain the document and amend it based on feedback shows it's purpose: not to nerf armies they hate, but provide the most consistent judging possible.

my feeling on this is pretty simple i do appreciate the effort that went into this but i do see alot of these changes are made by "your" personal opinions and not neccesarily based on the rules

secondly as adepticon is a "official" gw tournament as its part of the tournament series how do you think you can make rules changes for this event? i would think that gw would have something to say about this have they been notified of this

if they have please provide the response so that is is out in the open like you have done so far so everyone can see their response

now to answer the long winded poster nitpicking your entire faq and his seemingly superior stance that he knows everything yet he asked a dumb ass question himself i quote

" ELD.24C.01 –
Q: If an Eldar unit finishes its fall
back move within 12” of a friendly Avatar (or he
moves within 12” of a unit that is falling back)
does the unit immediately regroup?
A: Yes, the unit immediately regroups but does not make
a consolidation move [rules change].

Since this breaks the RAW, why are you doing this? The Avatar is not a Synapse Creature.

I don't see you giving this wonderful ability extension to other armies with similar abilities, so this just looks like meddling.


hey einstein the eldar avatar makes any unit within 12" of him fearless thats why...they immediately regroup and have counted as having moved since they are not space marines

the only problem i see with this is what if the unit is below half? how can they regroup since they unit is not allowed to regroup under the rules normally?

Stelek: A lot of the points you have a problem with being included are straight out of the YMDC section. Yes, people really argue about all of this crap. Can it hurt to have it clarified? Do we need a point by point run down of things you think shouldn't be clarified?

I can't respond for every nitpick, but a lot of it is just misinformed rage at nothing. The following as examples:

-Anything dealing with mystics deserves clarification. Particularly when dealing with drop pod assault.

-Kharn's psychic power nullification transfers to his unit because selecting his unit for psychic attack is essentially selecting Kharn as well, which nullifies the power. No transfer of ability is necessary.

-Psycannon rules state that 'only armor saves may be taken', so clarifying for cover saves is fine.

-Callidus has the C'tan phase sword, which sounds a lot like a CCW to me. So the question is relevant to the # of attacks.

-People have claimed that open topped status of drop pods allowed for assault from them on the turn they disembark. This clarification is necessary.

-Heavy weapon team basing is also a big gray area. Clarification is welcome.

-No Retreat! applies to all units who are immune to morale checks or *automatically pass them for some reason*.

-Assigning unit ownership to downed necrons is a big change that is really just plain necessary for monolith teleportation. Clarification is welcome.

-Tank shocks that hit equal AV stop 1" away from the target. Why would you expect the Deffrolla to work if you can't contact the target model?

-Fear of the darkness doesn't have a specified 'range' as is defined for weapons and other powers. It does have an area of effect, and doubling that with the rod of hellfire does constitute a rules change.

-Drones fire as part of the vehicle they are attached to. They are treated as passengers only for disembarking and vehicle damage.

-Tau Wargear restricts taking duplicate items, drones are wargear. The clarification is necessary and welcomed.

stelek wrote:BA.26C.04 – Q: Do Inquisitorial Mystics allow free
shots at units arriving by Drop Pod?
A: Yes. The shooting is resolved after the Drop Pod lands
and the passengers disembark. Either the Drop Pod or
the disembarked unit may be the targeted, but not both
[rules change].

Why are you overriding the GW rules in this instance? Both are seperate units, and eligible to be shot at.

This is exactly the type of stuff I am trying to point out. Meddling with and gimping units that hardly need to be gimped.

stelek wrote:DH.18E.01 – Q: Do Psycannons ignore cover
saves?
A: No, just invulnerable saves [rules change].

This is *NOT* a rules change. This is the RAW.

Exactly what "donkey-cave" did you crawl out of? How can you possibly hold, let alone defend, this assertion? Your understanding of RAW must be seriously flawed.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The other rulings Stelek calls out as "meddling" I agree with, and detailed them further in my last reply. For instance, why specify that a Neural Shredder can cause instant death on Leadership 4 targets? This makes your rulemaking look silly, and is just plain wrong. Instant Death has nothing to do with a Neural Shredder's effects.

@Yak--You never commented on my alternate ruling for guardian platforms, or the wisdom of basing your rule changes on "the way most players play." Most players I've met do not assume that an imperial guard weapon team member takes over the weapon if the actual gunner dies to torrent of fire, or mind war for that matter. And yet this is what you ruled, changing the mechanics of playing against Guard considerably. This type of meddling is frustrating, especially when you rule to the benefit of certain armies, without "player consensus," (as with guard weapon teams) and against other armies, such as with your psycannon ruling. Consistency, I would think, is more important in a rules document than "what the majority of player play," which you have no basis of determining, and thus becomes "what our little biased committee wants." So you see why people can get a little worked up over this.

And, pray tell, how would basing a FAQ off of RAW, create an unworkable FAQ, when you outline GW's RAW policy (codex overrides rulebook, etc) and the "Permissive" nature of the 40k rules as precedents for resolving rule ambiguity (such as tank shock into a combat)...

DyneDenethor wrote:I've gotta support the Adepticon Council Members who helped write the FAQ. As a former Adepticon council member/tournament judge, I have always had faith in their integrity and dedication to putting out a fair ruling, otherwise I would have never agreed to be a judge.
Dan B (DyneDenethor)

Nobody is questioning the awesomeness of the event, or the efforts put in my judges and organizers. However, "fair" is not a word I would use to describe some of their rulings. Just because you're writing up a FAQ beforehand doesn't mean you should throw considerations of "fairness" out the window, which is exactly what they have done--intentionally--on some of these rules.

A decision reached by consensus does not automatically make that decision right.

When you have a bunch of gamers from all over the North America and beyond it is important to all be on the same page. You do not realize that your local area plays certain rules one way, and other areas play them another.

Two years ago at my first Adepticon I ran into all kinds of rules issues that could not be solved that easily. For example I ended up playing a guy from Toronto who would not let me shoot at his landspeeder because I could not see its base. Where I play you target the vehicle, so I am glad for the clarifications so we both know what the answer is.

Some of those rules seem very basic but it is important to have them. A lot of those rules have been debated in YMTC so the answer might seem obvious to you, but there is reason for clarification. Especially in an event like the Gladiator that is no comp/sportsmanship people will try to get away with as much as possible.

For Example:

ColonelEllios wrote:

stelek wrote:BA.26C.04 – Q: Do Inquisitorial Mystics allow free
shots at units arriving by Drop Pod?
A: Yes. The shooting is resolved after the Drop Pod lands
and the passengers disembark. Either the Drop Pod or
the disembarked unit may be the targeted, but not both
[rules change].

Why are you overriding the GW rules in this instance? Both are seperate units, and eligible to be shot at.

This is exactly the type of stuff I am trying to point out. Meddling with and gimping units that hardly need to be gimped.

Space Marine Drop Pods do not deep strike at all. But all of the codexes afterwards they do deep strike so this rule brings them in line with the other codexes.

stelek wrote:CSM.25B.01 – Q: Do bike models with the Mark of
Tzeentch gain +1 to the invulnerable save
provided by turbo-boosting?
A: Yes [clarification].

Is this clarified for the stupid people? +1 to invulnerable saves needs to be clarified...why?

You need to read the UK GTs ruling on the matter to see why it needs to be clarified.

I could go on…but you get the point.


Stelek, for someone who always says that they get cheated on in GTs, it would seem that you would know the reasons for these clarification.

[

Moz wrote:
Stelek: A lot of the points you have a problem with being included are straight out of the YMDC section. Yes, people really argue about all of this crap. Can it hurt to have it clarified? Do we need a point by point run down of things you think shouldn't be clarified?

There are alot of things not clarified in the FAQ. Given this fact and that the FAQ answers some questions with a [Rules Change], well I must wonder why.

Moz wrote:
I can't respond for every nitpick, but a lot of it is just misinformed rage at nothing. The following as examples:

Woah, misinformed? Rage? What are you talking about?

Moz wrote:
-Anything dealing with mystics deserves clarification. Particularly when dealing with drop pod assault.

How is it currently confusing? Anything deep strikes, you can shoot it. Why does this need clarification?

Moz wrote:
-Kharn's psychic power nullification transfers to his unit because selecting his unit for psychic attack is essentially selecting Kharn as well, which nullifies the power. No transfer of ability is necessary.

It IS a transfer of ability. Since you ignored the comments about the Canoness, I can only assume you'd rather not deal with the reality that this is not a 'fair' rule since it is only applied to ONE army. Players do not like that.

Moz wrote:
-Psycannon rules state that 'only armor saves may be taken', so clarifying for cover saves is fine.

Sure, but he doesn't actually clarify that!

Moz wrote:
-Callidus has the C'tan phase sword, which sounds a lot like a CCW to me. So the question is relevant to the # of attacks.

Again, ignoring the facts I pointed out is quite handy. You cannot gain +1 attack without a CCW/Pistol combo, and the shredder is an assault weapon.

You know, before arguing with me you should know the rules I clearly reference.

Moz wrote:
-People have claimed that open topped status of drop pods allowed for assault from them on the turn they disembark. This clarification is necessary.

Indeed. It is. I've never seen such a person in real life or ever had the question posed but in a theoryhammer debate on the internet.

Seems like it's clarifying for the donkey-caves who'd try to rules lawyer this. You can't stop ALL of them unless you clarify EVERYTHING, which this FAQ does not do.

Moz wrote:
-Heavy weapon team basing is also a big gray area. Clarification is welcome.

Sorry, how is it 'grey'? There are two gunners per stand, on the stand. Since the only real problem occurs in close combat, and that is not addressed--what's the point of clarifying 10% of the problem and not the other, more immediate, 90%?

Moz wrote:
-No Retreat! applies to all units who are immune to morale checks or *automatically pass them for some reason*.

Shrug. If it's in the rulebook, why does it need to be clarified?

Moz wrote:
-Assigning unit ownership to downed necrons is a big change that is really just plain necessary for monolith teleportation. Clarification is welcome.

Since it's covered in the rules, what are we clarifying? That what the rules say is what we should do? Excellent FAQ.

Moz wrote:
-Tank shocks that hit equal AV stop 1" away from the target. Why would you expect the Deffrolla to work if you can't contact the target model?

Phil Kelly wrote the rules so if you make a DOG attack, you take +D6 hits. This is changing the rule in the Codex. Phil is aware of the rule regarding DOG, yet he put it in anyway. Why are you meddling? Was his intent somehow not clear enough? It feels like the rule was deemed too powerful and was removed. Well, as soon as you put your name on the Codex you too can FAQ it and change it. Till then, you should stop with the mini-nerfs.

Moz wrote:
-Fear of the darkness doesn't have a specified 'range' as is defined for weapons and other powers. It does have an area of effect, and doubling that with the rod of hellfire does constitute a rules change.

Please. This is nitpicking in the extreme. I've never seen a player say anything but it has a 12" range and hood doubles it. Saying it's a rules change is baloney, I see it all the time at GW GT's.

Moz wrote:
-Drones fire as part of the vehicle they are attached to. They are treated as passengers only for disembarking and vehicle damage.

So this invalidates what I said, how?

Moz wrote:
-Tau Wargear restricts taking duplicate items, drones are wargear. The clarification is necessary and welcomed.

Yet the drone controller entry explicitly and clearly removes that restriction. The clarification, like most of the rest, seems aimed entirely at stupid people who refuse to accept the spirit of the game and want to beat their opponent with rules.

These are the people that should be asked to leave tournaments and not return--and if you think this FAQ covers even 25% of the BS out there, you are sorely mistaken. You cannot FAQ the Warhammer system like this, you are making judgment calls on what designers thought 5 years ago!

Ellios, despite being told not to reply to you, I'll give you a fair shot.

I've played at alot of GW events, with alot of GW designers, and I do my fair share of 'stuff' involving GW. Psycannons don't mention cover saves because the guys that wrote the Codex (and the game) hold solid that only flamer templates deny cover saves. It's a basic premise from their viewpoint. Having had that explained to me, I can "understand" what it was they were saying about the psycannon rule being fine as is--why explain what is in the main rules?

Since I've been playing against GK, I've never:

A) Had a GK player tell me I can't take cover saves from a Psycannon.
B) Tried to take cover saves against Incinerator hits.
C) Ever had a problem resolving A or B.

Maybe you run into alot of asshats, or maybe Yakface does, or someone on the 'council' does--but since GK were released I've never had this come up at GT's or FLGS.

Makes me wonder what kind of gaming environment the Indy's have become.

Stelek, you're not getting it.

This FAQ isn't for you, it's for all the other players in the world who aren't as clever as you are and do ask lots of stupid questions.

And, pray tell, how would basing a FAQ off of RAW, create an unworkable FAQ, when you outline GW's RAW policy (codex overrides rulebook, etc) and the "Permissive" nature of the 40k rules as precedents for resolving rule ambiguity (such as tank shock into a combat)...

Are you serious? How many examples of how pure RAW doesn't always work. Do you even read half the crap brought up in YMDC?

Capt K

CaptKaruthors wrote:

And, pray tell, how would basing a FAQ off of RAW, create an unworkable FAQ, when you outline GW's RAW policy (codex overrides rulebook, etc) and the "Permissive" nature of the 40k rules as precedents for resolving rule ambiguity (such as tank shock into a combat)...

Are you serious? How many examples of how pure RAW doesn't always work do you need? Do you even read half the crap brought up in YMDC?

Capt K

I don't there any vehicles that DS besides skimmers

Sentinels Deep Strike as well.


Regardless, this is a very good FAQ. Also of note, we in my group play that Psycannons do not ignore cover saves, unlike the incinerators which explicitly state that they ignore both cover and invulnerable.

I will be introducing this FAQ in my shop (I work for Gee-Dub) and using it as a basis for argument avoidance and problem solving where the Official FAQ's don't already cover.


Very good work, guys.

Stelek wrote:

Moz wrote:
-Callidus has the C'tan phase sword, which sounds a lot like a CCW to me. So the question is relevant to the # of attacks.

Again, ignoring the facts I pointed out is quite handy. You cannot gain +1 attack without a CCW/Pistol combo, and the shredder is an assault weapon.

You know, before arguing with me you should know the rules I clearly reference.

While I agree with some of your points Stelek, I couldn't help but laugh at the response above. P. 40 of Rulebook under attacks - "+1 Two Weapons: Engaged models with two single-handed weapons (typically a close combat weapon and/or pistol in each hand) have an extra +1 attack for every turn of close combat, including the first." Fourth edition allows the extra attack with any 2 one-handed weapons. Not just ccw/pistol. Probably should double check rules before you blast somebody for not knowing the rules. Thanks for the chuckle though.

RB.84E.01 – Q: May a player choose to hold his
“infantry” units in Reserve when the Escalation
special rule is in effect?
A: No, units without a special rule allowing them to start
in Reserve must be deployed. The only exceptions are
units (and Independent Characters) embarked on a
transport. See RB.84I.05&06 for details [rules change].

This is probably a nitpick Yak, but would this include units embarked on non-dedicated or non-tranport vehicles? A Heavy Support Land Raider or a Falcon is not listed as a tranport vehicle, so could an IC or another unit be held back in reserve in that vehicle? Not sure if I am being clear either

Moz wrote:
-Callidus has the C'tan phase sword, which sounds a lot like a CCW to me. So the question is relevant to the # of attacks.

Again, ignoring the facts I pointed out is quite handy. You cannot gain +1 attack without a CCW/Pistol combo, and the shredder is an assault weapon.

You know, before arguing with me you should know the rules I clearly reference.



Actually, that's 3rd edition. 4th edition merely requires both weapons to be one handed weapons; there is no longer the restriction that one must have the "pistol" designation to grant the extra attack in close combat. This is the prime reason for the question about the Callidus; the RAW change from 3rd to 4th effectively gave the Callidus an extra attack (assuming the shredder is single handed).

Captain K I am wondering why you quoted yourself and had nothing more to add.

Anyways I have to laugh now that people are saying RAW does not always work. I used to knock mauleed for his staunch RAW position with the rules but now looking back I see he was ahead of his time. I think the concept of a metagame is just as much a farce as saying RAW 100%. However I will go with RAW over metagame over 90 percent of the time. This is worse than myceptic spores if you asked me.

- G(reen)

I dunno what you are referring to. I only posted once. Must have been a glitch?

Well if you want to play by RAW, then you won't be shooting your BA pistols on your tactical marines and assaulting me then right?

Capt K

Green Blow Fly wrote:Captain K I am wondering why you quoted yourself and had nothing more to add.

Anyways I have to laugh now that people are saying RAW does not always work. I used to knock mauleed for his staunch RAW position with the rules but now looking back I see he was ahead of his time. I think the concept of a metagame is just as much a farce as saying RAW 100%. However I will go with RAW over metagame over 90 percent of the time. This is worse than myceptic spores if you asked me.

- G(reen)

Well if you want to play by RAW, then you won't be shooting your BA pistols on your tactical marines and assaulting me then right?

Stelek wrote:Ellios, despite being told not to reply to you, I'll give you a fair shot.

I've played at alot of GW events, with alot of GW designers, and I do my fair share of 'stuff' involving GW. Psycannons don't mention cover saves because the guys that wrote the Codex (and the game) hold solid that only flamer templates deny cover saves. It's a basic premise from their viewpoint. Having had that explained to me, I can "understand" what it was they were saying about the psycannon rule being fine as is--why explain what is in the main rules?

Since I've been playing against GK, I've never:

A) Had a GK player tell me I can't take cover saves from a Psycannon.
B) Tried to take cover saves against Incinerator hits.
C) Ever had a problem resolving A or B.

Maybe you run into alot of asshats, or maybe Yakface does, or someone on the 'council' does--but since GK were released I've never had this come up at GT's or FLGS.

Makes me wonder what kind of gaming environment the Indy's have become.

My question is the same as yours--if you're going to add Psycannons to the FAQ and not specify why you made such a clarification, how can you expect someone who is looking at the rule staring up from their codex to NOT feel as though they're being gimped by the Adepticon panel?

I just play the way my opponent/environment dictates. I don't much care. But I expect consistency from something like a FAQ, and rules changes had better be well-founded. Some of these stick out like a sore thumb, and worse yet inflict the local metagame of the creators upon the entire attendance (like the neural shredder thing, which, like your Psycannon experience, I've never had anyone claim that it can cause Instant Death).

And why would someone tell you to ignore me? Do I cut too deep? Oops. Do they want to hear that I give up on the Psycannon thing? I wasn't trying in the first place. I was using it as a vehicle to point out the fact that they changed rules where not needed, and fail to justify themselves when it is.
______________________________

CaptKaruthors wrote:

And, pray tell, how would basing a FAQ off of RAW, create an unworkable FAQ, when you outline GW's RAW policy (codex overrides rulebook, etc) and the "Permissive" nature of the 40k rules as precedents for resolving rule ambiguity (such as tank shock into a combat)...

Are you serious? How many examples of how pure RAW doesn't always work. Do you even read half the crap brought up in YMDC?

Capt K

Yes, I do read quite a bit of it and have been ignoring a majority of it as of late. The one thing that predominates in YMDC is the multitude of people who ask a question after either failing to read the rules or completely comprehend them.

As far as the game being unworkable by RAW, by a large margin it most certainly is not. The issues where RAW is inadequate are few and far between. But then again, I suppose it depends on how absolute your definition of RAW is. Most of the "proofs" that people espouse against RAW are, in my experience, completely ludicrous as to be easily dismissed, or are the result of a complete failure to realize that 40k is based in a permissive and contiguous rule set. Looking at one piece of wargear with its own limited rules defined in the codex, apart from the rest of the main rules (not directly specified by the wargear) and there you have, well, you have every question I've seen in YMDC that supposedly isn't answerable by the rules written.

Since I've been going over this FAQ on the 40kfightclub with Malice and C99 all day, I figured I'd stop over here and see what people have to say about it. I'd like to echo the comments that this FAQ does a good job of showing that FAQs are possible to make, but unlike others I really hope that this FAQ does not become standard. I don't believe that the people who made it were biased but I think they were a little to willing to override the rule book. As C99 pointed out on the fightclub of the 544 questions:
[rules change] was used 305 times.
[RAW] was used 122 times to determine the answer to a question.
[clarification] was used 91 times.
[typo] was used 20 times.
[gw FAQ overrule] was used 6 times.

I undertand the RAW isn't perfect but is it really necessary to change the rules 56% of the time? I don't think so. The Direwolf FAQ for Fantasy have just as bad a ruleset to deal with but manage to create FAQs that are pretty universally excepted by the Fantasy community because they actually clarify things while leaving the rules in place. I wish that the "council" had taken a similar approach to this. I also wish they had left it named the Adepticon FAQ as that way I could easily have ignored it just like I did last year. Instead they are now fracturing the GW tournament scene into Adepticon tournaments and Non-Adepticon tournaments.

steinerp wrote:Since I've been going over this FAQ on the 40kfightclub with Malice and C99 all day, I figured I'd stop over here and see what people have to say about it. I'd like to echo the comments that this FAQ does a good job of showing that FAQs are possible to make, but unlike others I really hope that this FAQ does not become standard. I don't believe that the people who made it were biased but I think they were a little to willing to override the rule book. As C99 pointed out on the fightclub of the 544 questions:
[rules change] was used 305 times.
[RAW] was used 122 times to determine the answer to a question.
[clarification] was used 91 times.
[typo] was used 20 times.
[gw FAQ overrule] was used 6 times.

I undertand the RAW isn't perfect but is it really necessary to change the rules 56% of the time? I don't think so. The Direwolf FAQ for Fantasy have just as bad a ruleset to deal with but manage to create FAQs that are pretty universally excepted by the Fantasy community because they actually clarify things while leaving the rules in place. I wish that the "council" had taken a similar approach to this. I also wish they had left it named the Adepticon FAQ as that way I could easily have ignored it just like I did last year. Instead they are now fracturing the GW tournament scene into Adepticon tournaments and Non-Adepticon tournaments.

I obviously was having trouble expressing myself this eloquently. Props steinerp for perfectly outlining my feelings.

Stelek wrote: I've always refused to play by GW's slowed ruleset and instead played by my own.

Before you go complaining about what is RAW and what isn't and that a FAQ is stupid, it helps to actually know and understand the rules that are in the FAQ.

steinerp wrote:Since I've been going over this FAQ on the 40kfightclub with Malice and C99 all day, I figured I'd stop over here and see what people have to say about it. I'd like to echo the comments that this FAQ does a good job of showing that FAQs are possible to make, but unlike others I really hope that this FAQ does not become standard. I don't believe that the people who made it were biased but I think they were a little to willing to override the rule book. As C99 pointed out on the fightclub of the 544 questions:
[rules change] was used 305 times.
[RAW] was used 122 times to determine the answer to a question.
[clarification] was used 91 times.
[typo] was used 20 times.
[gw FAQ overrule] was used 6 times.

I undertand the RAW isn't perfect but is it really necessary to change the rules 56% of the time? I don't think so. The Direwolf FAQ for Fantasy have just as bad a ruleset to deal with but manage to create FAQs that are pretty universally excepted by the Fantasy community because they actually clarify things while leaving the rules in place. I wish that the "council" had taken a similar approach to this. I also wish they had left it named the Adepticon FAQ as that way I could easily have ignored it just like I did last year. Instead they are now fracturing the GW tournament scene into Adepticon tournaments and Non-Adepticon tournaments.

Paul, don't forget to mention the part about where I also said the following:

Now, while "rules change" was used more than any other, most of those just happen be the way that people actually play, or because it is physically impossible, or blatantly absurd to play by the RAW. For example, by RAW any actions that should occur "at the start of the turn" or "at the start of the movement phase" should, by RAW happen simultaneously. Doing any of those actions first breaks the RAW.

That's the problem with being RAW-fantatics (which most of the people on the FAQ council are) - you get to see when even the RAW is absurd. Take psycannons, for instance. by RAW, it's clear that cover saves aren't allowed. Nobody I know plays that way, or has ever tried to play that way.
But if someone who, with a few friends, picked up the game, read the rules on their own, and then decided to see what this "tournament scene" was all about showed up, they could very easily come assuming that their psycannons don't allow you to take cover saves.
Hence, its technically a "rules change". Because the simple fact is that lots of people play with local conventions that go against the RAW. When you bring together people who have different conventions - you have a recipe for conflict.

Anyone else finding the humor in this?

Usually, when rules questions are answered (especially here at Dakka), people are up in arms because using RAW is a recipe for coming to some silly (psycannons ignoring cover saves), unplayable (all reserves must enter simultaneously), or simply absurd (Can't charge a model from one unit with an IC if there is a model from another unit in BTB) conclusions.

So a committee consisting of the usual proponents of RAW come out with a FAQ that addresses those issues...and people jump all over them for not using RAW enough.

Sorry C99- the reason I referenced you is because I didn't want someone coming after me for counting wrong. Rereading it I should have included more of your disclaimers. I also probably should have clarifed that as I pointed out on the other forum I would argue about the labelling on many of the items as well if I thought how they were labeled was important.

steinerp wrote:Sorry C99- the reason I referenced you is because I didn't want someone coming after me for counting wrong. Rereading it I should have included more of your disclaimers. I also probably should have clarifed that as I pointed out on the other forum I would argue about the labelling on many of the items as well if I thought how they were labeled was important.

No problems.

Hey, I was trying to think...in all the games we've played together, have we actually disagreed on a rules call besides the whole Escalation thing at the Ard Boyz?

Not that I remember (but I don't even remember what we disagreed with regarding Escalation). And that sort of is my point is that while 40k's rules clearly aren't perfect, they don't need an 80 page FAQ. IMO if you had limited to those situations where two rules clearly conflict or a rule is just so poorly worded that no one has any clue what they are supposed to do, then this FAQ would be extremely valuable and should be adopted by everyone.

steinerp wrote:And that sort of is my point is that while 40k's rules clearly aren't perfect, they don't need an 80 page FAQ.

Oh yes they do.

and nevermind, found my answer, but it does bring up the rules changes.

In the FAQ we are now allowed to attach IC's with units that are coming in reserve, and or mark units to come in with a non-dedicated transport. In escalation missions this has a huge effect on the game (mounted Harlequins, mounted Fire Dragons, Terminators in a non dedicated Land Raider) While these make sense, and I know everyone has thought about changing them at one point or another, do they really need changed, or should we change them. Most every tourney I have seen we have not been allowed to do what the above rule change does, and by allowing it, it changes the meta game considerably in any missions with escalation. Oddly, I find it very hard to stomach that rule change after believing it should be changed, but only because it is an unofficial ruling that has a major impact on people using these rules. An impact that as far as I know won't be used in any of the official GW tourneys.

It's an odd feeling.

A comprehensive FAQ like this will have to contradict the RAW or the game would be unplayable and annoying for 99% of the particpants. I won't be able to attend this year but I will likely use this FAQ at the local tournaments I run. I hope others do the same and I'll be lobbying for just that with my local Fight Club members.

The lack of a comprehensive FAQ has been one of the biggest shames of 40k IMHO and I'm glad a commitee such as this put the time and effort to put this together, even if I may disagree with a few of the rulings.

Bravo.

Blackmoor, the problem is--this FAQ doesn't cover most of the cheating. So it's pretty useless to me.

Yep, I got the pistol thing wrong. I have 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 4.5, and 3 playtests of 5th in my noggin. Like I always say, I do make mistakes.

steinerp expressed my feelings very well. You should always err on the side of caution when writing rules supplements, and be as conservative as possible. This FAQ creates a whole new game in so many ways, it's sad to see so much effort put in to the FAQ when the end result is a Adepticon 40k game, not a GW 40k game.

You *can* clarify things for players, and still leave contradictions in the rules. GW's been doing it since the game was created, and I still manage to play games without problems. A quote I'm reminded of is 'good men don't need laws, and bad men aren't improved by them'.
Having asshats at tournaments is nothing new, and there's nothing you can really do about them. If they can't cheat in the rules; they'll cheat in other ways be it dice, measuring, moving, fudging points, or modeling shenanigans.

All I can say is, it really is ok to follow the KISS principle, and when something doesn't make sense instead of bending the tube straight--just say 'yep, that tube is bent'. People WILL fault you for straightening the tube instead of making things fit around it (which most won't fault you for). Can't please everyone, but reinventing the game to your specifications isn't what anyone asked for. Is it?

I find myself falling on the same side as Stelek here.

What I especially don't like is the arbitrary way in which rules changes are handed out. I mean, they're fine changing rules, yet it appears that they've left in the 'Psycannons ignore Turbo-Boost Saves' as RAW.

I mean, everyone agrees that that was an unforseen side-effect of the turbo-boost rules, and that it makes utterly no sense that a Marine's armour stops working just because he's moving faster, yet they don't put a little [rules change] next to that, yet change, as it turns out, more than 300 other times?

No, this isn't 40K. This is Adepticon 40K. It'd be like making everyone play 40KRE at Adepticon. It wouldn't be 40K, it'd be our 40K.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:I find myself falling on the same side as Stelek here.

What I especially don't like is the arbitrary way in which rules changes are handed out. I mean, they're fine changing rules, yet it appears that they've left in the 'Psycannons ignore Turbo-Boost Saves' as RAW.

I mean, everyone agrees that that was an unforseen side-effect of the turbo-boost rules, and that it makes utterly no sense that a Marine's armour stops working just because he's moving faster, yet they don't put a little [rules change] next to that, yet change, as it turns out, more than 300 other times?

No, this isn't 40K. This is Adepticon 40K. It'd be like making everyone play 40KRE at Adepticon. It wouldn't be 40K, it'd be our 40K.

BYE

I hope to get to everyone's feedback at some point, but sadly superbowl festivities plus a (going on with no end in sight) 16 hour very busy workday today has meant that I haven't had time to respond where I'd like to.

I'll take the moment that I do have to respond to HBMC's post just because it happens to be the last one right now. I'll also try to address some general points others have brought up too.


First up is the notion that this is "Adepticon 40K" as opposed to some sort of percieved "real" 40K. Anyone who has attended a national 40K tournament quickly figures out that there is not just one way to play 40K as almost every regional group has interpreted the game in some small way.

Anytime you have a game with the rules as complex as 40K you are going to have different styles of play, each of which feels theirs is entirely correct. In this *very* thread we have people claiming that the rules as they see them written say entirely different things.

Consider that fact for a moment and realize that even if you made a FAQ that you felt was entirely based on the rules as written there would *still* be a large amount of people screaming bloody murder that you were re-shaping the rules. In fact, I will easily say that every single FAQ put out by any event organizer has the majority of its rulings (in reality) be rules changes based on the strictest interpretation of the RAW.

The only difference between any of those other FAQs and ours is that we have actually come out and said where we feel we're changing the rules. Oh, and the fact that this is easily the most comprehensive, well-laid out, cross-referenced and consistent event FAQ ever published. I don't want to forget those parts either. But in many ways we're taking the blows for being a FAQ that is finally honest about its changes.

When you go play in the UKGT with their "house rules" guess what? I guess you aren't playing 40K, you're apparently playing "UKGT 40K" designed by the event organizer who wrote his FAQ.

I suppose that is one way to look at things. But again, I'd point out that people will naturally play the game differently and as I wrote in the FAQ afterword, this a TOURNAMENT FAQ. And a while a tournament may be about crowning winners, is also about giving a pleasurable experience to as many atendees as possible. No one I've ever met enjoys arguments during their games, and I firmly believe that this FAQ will create less in-game arguments than ever before for the reasons that I outline in the document's afterword.


As for the idea that we have so many rules changes as opposed to clarifications or RAW rulings, and for those who don't agree with how particular answers were labeled (looking at you here Stelek ) I want to mention that those labels added to our rulings our simply our opinions on the matter. As I've said several times now in this post, different people have different ideas even of what the RAW mean so it shouldn't be surprising if we think we're changing the RAW with a ruling and you don't.

Also, please be aware that I always tended to take the more conservative route when claiming whether a ruling was changing the RAW or not, with the default being a [rules change] if I was even the slightest bit unsure. So there are *plenty* of people who will look through the document at many of the [rules changes] we made and say: "why is that a rules change?"

Which brings me back to making rulings based on majority-play. It has been said that (I'm paraphrasing): "just because most people play some way doens't make it right".

However, when you're talking about a TOURNAMENT where (again) the GOAL of any good tournament is to make an enjoyable time for as many people as possible, by ruling with the way the majority plays you create an atmosphere with the least possible arguments.

Let's take the case of the Psycannon vs. cover saves. Let's say the numbers in the poll I took in the YMDC forum are even close to the make-up of a tournament body. 80% of the people coming into the tournament play that Psycannons don't ignore cover saves, while 20% do. These are people who play the game and have come to those conclusions (for whatever reason) on their own. I would even say these are the more 'savvy' 40K players in that they surf the web and read online GW FAQs, etc. You would have to imagine that the people who never read FAQs or rarely come online that percentage would be even higher.

So what does it possibly achieve to rule against the 80%? Because it is "right"? But please remember that 80% of the people playing think the "right" way to play (for whatever) reason is that Psycannons do *not* ignore cover saves. The only possible outcome of ruling this way would be to increase the amount of arguments that occur throughout the tournament hall as the 20% have to prove through the FAQ that they are allowed to ignore cover saves. Alternatively, if we rule with the 80%, then the only arguments that occur on the issue are the (very) small percentage of the 20% who did not read the FAQ.

Since I contend that the people who tend to know the RAW are the same people who visit online forums and are 'FAQ savvy', this percentage of people should be very, very small.


Now, obviously we haven't had the time or resources to poll every single question in the FAQ (that may come to Dakka someday), the fact is, we've had to go with our combined tournament experiences for some questions. But nobody's resting on our own laurels. I have been repeatedly saying, if you think there is a subject we have gotten completely wrong we can most certainly run a quick poll and if the results completely destroy our personal tournament experiences then by all means would be strongly consider changing a ruling (almost certainly).

The other area where feedback is really useful is in the matter of consistency across rulings. I've tried my best to catch all the corresponding loopholes that each ruling creates, especially in relation to similar rules (and I know for a fact it is the FAQ that it has been done better than any FAQ before it), but things will always slip through. It is the nature of complexity.

So you don't have to be angry when you find an incosistency, just point it out and why you think it is indeed an inconsistency and if we agree with you we will likely modify the ruling.


Finally, I thought I'd address HBMC's one rule issue he posted:

Why did we rule that Psycannons ignore invulnerable saves for turbo-boosting bikes?

Simple. GW ruled (unofficially) on their forum at one point that way and many people read it and decided to start playing that way. So in our experience, most people believe that is the "right" way to play. Now, we did discuss that ruling multiple times. As always, it is possible we are wrong about how most people play it, but that has been our experience.

However, I wouldn't call the ruling abritrary. We certainly put thought and discussion into making it.


Thanks for all the feedback (the more constructive, the better) and hopefully I'll be able to address some point more directly later.

I really like this FAQ. It hits most issues and gives a ruling. I get tired of going to tournements and going up to the judges to ask how certain things will be ruled before I start. Now, there are a lot more rulings in this FAQ than I nomally ask and other rulings that I disagree with or normally play differently, but I like this much more than going into the tournement, asking the judge, and then finding out the list I brought is not going to work the way I normally play it. Also, I can adapt and do not believe that my version of the rules is the only right version, so the ones we differ on are not a big deal now that I know in advance. And to those that say they put too much into the FAQ... They cannot possible do this in my mind. I have seen too many people believe too many things from what I thought were simple rules. Now I have always worked them out with my opponent, but why have to worry about that? Looking forward to Adepticon.

The Wraith

Got my full support too. I don't care about individual rulings, or the ramifications of RAW vs. how it's played. I just want to be playing the same game that the guy across the table is playing (without having to call an organizer or D6 everything), and this helps that cause tremendously.

When you go play in the UKGT with their "house rules" guess what? I guess you aren't playing 40K, you're apparently playing "UKGT 40K" designed by the event organizer who wrote his FAQ.

And I have never seen anyone try to get people outside of the UK GT to use that FAQ either.

I suppose that is one way to look at things. But again, I'd point out that people will naturally play the game differently and as I wrote in the FAQ afterword, this a TOURNAMENT FAQ. And a while a tournament may be about crowning winners, is also about giving a pleasurable experience to as many atendees as possible. No one I've ever met enjoys arguments during their games, and I firmly believe that this FAQ will create less in-game arguments than ever before for the reasons that I outline in the document's afterword.

However, when you're talking about a TOURNAMENT where (again) the GOAL of any good tournament is to make an enjoyable time for as many people as possible, by ruling with the way the majority plays you create an atmosphere with the least possible arguments.

Isn't that the goal of every game of 40k? It seems like most games tournament or not are resolved with minimal rules conflict without the need for such a far reaching FAQ. You can say this is only for tournaments but if you want this to be a broad, multiuse tournamnet you really are advocating for this to be used in every game of 40k. The reason most people play the game sizes they do is because of the tournament scene (or you only have X points). I alsoquestion whether having an additional rulebook will really result in a more pleasurable play experience for most people. For hard core tournament player who know it inside and out, they will win more, be able to resolve arguments quicker, and have a better experience. But for Bob the new guy, who even if he knows about this FAQ probably doesn't know it that well, will have a rules change thrown on him. This will result in a negative game experience, IMO. God forbid someone who doesn't frequent these forums trys to attend an event using this FAQ. That is why I argue that a more conservative approach should have been taken when making the FAQ.

Everyone complaining about the FAQ can just not use it.

If you don't like it, don't go to Adepticaon or any other tournament that decides to adopt it as standard.

When in friendly games the other guys suggest using the Adepticaon FAQ, just refuse.

If however you support FAQs generally but disagree with some of the content in this one, either make your own FAQ or at least help the Adepticon committee improve it by offering sensible criticism.

Killkrazy- Sadly it's not that easy. If they had left the label as "Adepticon FAQ" then you are completely correct. Just don't go to Adepticon if it is that big of a deal. However as the "National Correct Way to Play 40k FAQ" it will split the gaming community into FAQ users and Non-FAQ users. Some of my best tournament games have been againist FAQ users and I don't want them to avoid my events because I'm not using the FAQ. And to be honest this FAQ won't keep me from attending Adepticon. It is there tournament and they should be able to run it however they want. I'm arguing aganist the spreading of this FAQ to the wider 40k world as I think it will have a clear negative impact. As far as offering "senisble criticism" I hope that is what I am doing here. I'm less concerned with any of the specific rules as I am the scope of the FAQ.

This FAQ, whatever its flaws is the biggest and best anyone has put out.

It is assembled by an identified committee rather than shadowy figures in darkened rooms. It is annotated clearly to show what they have done and why. They are willing to accept reasonable argument and popular opinion via polls in order to do updates and corrections.

To argue against the FAQ spreading to the wider world seems to me futile. It will spread by itself or not, depending on its merits.

The FAQ cannot be imposed on anyone, so people running their own tournaments can continue to use their own if they wish.

It will not split players into factions any more than they are now by the variety of different incomplete FAQ documents on offer (leaving aside those players who do not use any FAQs.)

I expect it will be widely used because it fulfills a need.

Alot of work went into the FAQ and it is well laid out with plenty of examples/illustrations to help people understand the intent. There does look to be a lot of house rules but everyone who takes the time to fully digest the tome will be on the same page.

- G

My only disagreements with the FAQ are the overruling of GW FAQs along with a few rules changes that were clearly defined.

The Dark Eldar FAQ comes to mind as well as the Eldar Guardian weapons platform come to mind. For me it has a feel like rewriting the rules or as Selek says: meddling.

Overall its a great effort done by the team but like with any document, it is still open for change and this is the forum to provide some constructive criticism. I only ask the Dakka community not to crucify anyone who do not agree with the FAQ. Were all here to share our thoughts and ideas. Besides Americans have had the Constitution since 1787 and we have been arguing about that document ever since. Let give our input and work on make it a better document we can mostly agree on.

I just would like to say that all of the references to assaulting from a drop pod are incorrect.

If you assault from a drop pod on the turn it arrives even tho the drop pod is open topped, you break the deep strike rules.

Thus, no assaulting from drop pods on the turn they arrive.

thehod wrote:Let give our input and work on make it a better document we can mostly agree on.

That's exactly what we need to do. This is a great basis for a document that can bring consistency to 40K no matter where you go.

Steiner - people will still travel to events whether they use this FAQ or not. It all depends on the quality of the event when it comes down to it. A FAQ is not going to make or break the event. That does not mean though that player experiences could not be better.

Now on the flip side - "Bob the new guy" is most likely going to have new rules or clarifications popped on him at any event. He is new and there is a definite learning curve. One would not expect him to have every rule or FAQ down pat. That's the difference between veterans and "new guys". The idea behind this is to bring consistency to the rulings so that "Bob the new guy" and veterans for that matter don't go to multiple events and get tons of different rulings, which significantly detracts from "his" experience. Even as a veteran, I have had a lot of different rulings for the same questions at many events. And it sucks big time. If it sucks for me, then it probably will suck for "Bob the new guy".

So as Hod said above - we ask that you give your input on what issues you see and help to make it a better document. You play under one game system that everyone attempts to use (ie: the 40K rule book - which is flawed to no end). Why not work to play under one FAQ (which is attempting to remove these flaws)?

The rule of FAQ's is that it doesn't matter what the ruling actually is, but rather that the ruling is out there and known/made accessible before hand so someone isn't surprised in the middle of a game after making moves with the (mistaken) understanding of what the rule actually is.

I've been surprised many times by 'house rules' in the middle of a tournament. Makes it a bad experience for me, and makes me look like I'm trying to exploit the rules to the other guy, just because the 'house' doesn't like following some rules.

They also have "primers" where people can
get used to the format of the scenarios, the FAQs, etc. I
haven't gone, but they seem like mini-tournaments.

thehod wrote: My only disagreements with the FAQ are the overruling of GW FAQs along with a few rules changes that were clearly defined.

The Dark Eldar FAQ comes to mind as well as the Eldar Guardian weapons platform come to mind. For me it has a feel like rewriting the rules or as Selek says: meddling.

Overall its a great effort done by the team but like with any document, it is still open for change and this is the forum to provide some constructive criticism. I only ask the Dakka community not to crucify anyone who do not agree with the FAQ. Were all here to share our thoughts and ideas. Besides Americans have had the Constitution since 1787 and we have been arguing about that document ever since. Let give our input and work on make it a better document we can mostly agree on.

A very good message.

We should not crucify people who have arguments with individual rullings.

However I am against people who say we should have lots of FAQs or none. The best situation is one FAQ which everybody uses, and can be modified if problems arise. Ideally that should be provided by GW, to make it official, but as they won't do it I am glad that the Adepticon crew stepped into the breach.

A very good message.

We should not crucify people who have arguments with individual rullings.

However I am against people who say we should have lots of FAQs or none. The best situation is one FAQ which everybody uses, and can be modified if problems arise. Ideally that should be provided by GW, to make it official, but as they won't do it I am glad that the Adepticon crew stepped into the breach.

Agreed.
Capt K

Not to be a troublemaker but one and only FAQ for the entire market sounds a heck of a lot like a dictatorship. It is also a pipe dream at best.

- G

Yes, multiple FAQs that no one agrees on is much, much better.

sigh.

It's only a dictatorship if you want to believe it is so. It is a FAQ made up from discussions and polls on here and many places. Not sure exactly how that equals a dictatorship, but this is the same crowd that thinks everything is a conspiracy.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Not to be a troublemaker but one and only FAQ for the entire market sounds a heck of a lot like a dictatorship. It is also a pipe dream at best.

One and only FAQ for the entire market sounds like something that GW should've done a long time ago! Oh wait! That was fourth edition. Then it needed a FAQ. Oh wait! That will be fifth edition. I can't wait until we start seeing the latest playtest 5th Ed. FAQ.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Not to be a troublemaker but one and only FAQ for the entire market sounds a heck of a lot like a dictatorship. It is also a pipe dream at best.

- G

That is just ridiculous. The FAQ changes where made with majority concensus on multiple forums.

Toreador wrote:and nevermind, found my answer, but it does bring up the rules changes.

In the FAQ we are now allowed to attach IC's with units that are coming in reserve, and or mark units to come in with a non-dedicated transport. In escalation missions this has a huge effect on the game (mounted Harlequins, mounted Fire Dragons, Terminators in a non dedicated Land Raider) While these make sense, and I know everyone has thought about changing them at one point or another, do they really need changed, or should we change them. Most every tourney I have seen we have not been allowed to do what the above rule change does, and by allowing it, it changes the meta game considerably in any missions with escalation. Oddly, I find it very hard to stomach that rule change after believing it should be changed, but only because it is an unofficial ruling that has a major impact on people using these rules. An impact that as far as I know won't be used in any of the official GW tourneys.

It's an odd feeling.

This is a very valid concern especially because, IMO this is one of the few rulings in the FAQ that really does change the game pretty signifigantly. But the issue was this:

The new codices (from the Eldar on) don't allow characters to purchase retinue units that they start the game attached to. This means there is absolutely no way to ensure that your character can start the game mounted in a vehicle.

This is especially noticable if you play an all mechanized army such as KOS or mech Eldar and you play an Escalation mission where for some bizarre reason your character is the only model left sitting on the battlefield as he can't start the game in Reserve. Of course, in these situations you can always take bike-mounted characters (which do start off the table), but I think the point is clear.

More noticable is with the DA, BA & BTs (because of the Emperor's Champion), all of whom cannot field an entire drop pod armies because they will always have a character running around the table on his own like an idiot.


So for a FAQ ruling that leaves one of three options:

A) Leave the rule as is which doesn't allow DAs, BAs & BTs to field drop pod armies and forces Eldar and Ork players to take bike-mounted ICs in their army if they want to keep the army together in an Escalation mission.
B) Change the rules so that only certain armies (like BAs, DAs & BTs, for example) are allowed to start their characters in a Drop Pod.
C) Change the rules completely so that all armies can hold units in reserve if they have a transport unit that is in Reserve.



Our original ruling (before the FAQ was published) was 'A'. It was just going to be 'tough luck' for those BA, DA & BT players who wanted to use drop pod armies.

But with the leaked 5th edition PDF it became pretty clear that GW is moving towards a position where you are allowed to mount your units in transports in reserve and then make a single roll for all of them to arrive together. I believe that regardless of how the 5th edition rules change to their final version, that rule will be in existance simply because of the way they are writing codices now there just isn't really any other choice.

So a decision was made because we know a lot of people have seen the leaked PDF and because the rules really do deny a few army types from being fielded that we would make this signifigant rules change.

ok i spoke to a rep at gw today
not surprisingly was his answer of i dont care

ok thats fine thats typical GW they dont care what the players think only their bottom line thats why they are losing money hand over fist.

now on to the topic

"First up is the notion that this is "Adepticon 40K" as opposed to some sort of percieved "real" 40K. Anyone who has attended a national 40K tournament quickly figures out that there is not just one way to play 40K as almost every regional group has interpreted the game in some small way.

This is exactly what you call adepticon 40k. you took rules already established by the company and changed them because you didnt like the rules they imposed.

my whole beef with this is the fact you are part of their tournament circuit but yet you feel the 5 or 6 of you have the right to change the rules as you see fit.


""The only difference between any of those other FAQs and ours is that we have actually come out and said where we feel we're changing the rules. Oh, and the fact that this is easily the most comprehensive, well-laid out, cross-referenced and consistent event FAQ ever published. I don't want to forget those parts either. But in many ways we're taking the blows for being a FAQ that is finally honest about its changes""

thats just it you changed the rules as YOU see fit.. that right there says all i need to know about it

it is not your taking blows for doing the work in fact alot of people applaud you for doing what we have all been doing for years

where your taking hits is your making your changes to a national level event without the neccesary credentials to be able to do this in the first place

forgive me if im wrong but you dont work for GW yor not part of the rules development team and while Adepticon is an indy gt it is part of the GAMES WORKSHOP TOURNAMENT CIRCUIT... which means you follow their rules

im sorry but if that is how things are going to be run, my team will not be attending. we have already cancelled our reservations and have decided we are not going to be attending

and this will be my last comment on this subject i endorse your faq whole heartedly it is very concise and clear if you had submitted it to gw and they said yup thats cool with us then id have no problem .. but to make the changes on your own smacks of good ole boys setting things up for their friends..

yakface wrote:

Toreador wrote:and nevermind, found my answer, but it does bring up the rules changes.

In the FAQ we are now allowed to attach IC's with units that are coming in reserve, and or mark units to come in with a non-dedicated transport. In escalation missions this has a huge effect on the game (mounted Harlequins, mounted Fire Dragons, Terminators in a non dedicated Land Raider) While these make sense, and I know everyone has thought about changing them at one point or another, do they really need changed, or should we change them. Most every tourney I have seen we have not been allowed to do what the above rule change does, and by allowing it, it changes the meta game considerably in any missions with escalation. Oddly, I find it very hard to stomach that rule change after believing it should be changed, but only because it is an unofficial ruling that has a major impact on people using these rules. An impact that as far as I know won't be used in any of the official GW tourneys.

It's an odd feeling.

This is a very valid concern especially because, IMO this is one of the few rulings in the FAQ that really does change the game pretty signifigantly. But the issue was this:

The new codices (from the Eldar on) don't allow characters to purchase retinue units that they start the game attached to. This means there is absolutely no way to ensure that your character can start the game mounted in a vehicle.

This is especially noticable if you play an all mechanized army such as KOS or mech Eldar and you play an Escalation mission where for some bizarre reason your character is the only model left sitting on the battlefield as he can't start the game in Reserve. Of course, in these situations you can always take bike-mounted characters (which do start off the table), but I think the point is clear.

More noticable is with the DA, BA & BTs (because of the Emperor's Champion), all of whom cannot field an entire drop pod armies because they will always have a character running around the table on his own like an idiot.


So for a FAQ ruling that leaves one of three options:

A) Leave the rule as is which doesn't allow DAs, BAs & BTs to field drop pod armies and forces Eldar and Ork players to take bike-mounted ICs in their army if they want to keep the army together in an Escalation mission.
B) Change the rules so that only certain armies (like BAs, DAs & BTs, for example) are allowed to start their characters in a Drop Pod.
C) Change the rules completely so that all armies can hold units in reserve if they have a transport unit that is in Reserve.



Our original ruling (before the FAQ was published) was 'A'. It was just going to be 'tough luck' for those BA, DA & BT players who wanted to use drop pod armies.

But with the leaked 5th edition PDF it became pretty clear that GW is moving towards a position where you are allowed to mount your units in transports in reserve and then make a single roll for all of them to arrive together. I believe that regardless of how the 5th edition rules change to their final version, that rule will be in existance simply because of the way they are writing codices now there just isn't really any other choice.

So a decision was made because we know a lot of people have seen the leaked PDF and because the rules really do deny a few army types from being fielded that we would make this signifigant rules change.

you made your rules changes based on the leaked pdf? omfg

you have got to be kidding me

then i was absolutely right you guys made your rules changes because you didnt like the way they ruled you have no defense im sorry im out of here

Rle68 wrote:

you made your rules changes based on the leaked pdf? omfg

you have got to be kidding me

then i was absolutely right you guys made your rules changes because you didnt like the way they ruled you have no defense im sorry im out of here

We didn't like the way who ruled? GW's rulebook FAQ in principle supports the exact ruling we made except for the fact that they didn't address that characters don't appear to be able to be held in Reserve in Escalation missions (which is the whole crux of the problem).

This ruling was not made based on the leaked PDF. It was made on a number of factors (as I explained) one which being the fact that the leaked PDF reveals a likely future regarding the issue and since many players have seen the PDF they are likely to be alright with the ruling.

The ruling is essentially for Blood Angel, Dark Angel and Black Templar players who are currently unable to field all drop pod armies by the RAW. I don't play any of these armies, nor do any of the members of the council (to my knowledge) nor do any of "their friends".

It is for the PLAYERS whose armies have been made essentially unplayable by what is almost certainly a loophole in the rules because of the development of 5th edition and its effects on the codices being currently released.


I am sorry you won't be attending, but frankly I'm a little surprised at your niavete on this issue. There have been quite a few event FAQs released used by tournaments in the past and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM has "changed" the rules as the tournament organizer sees fit. That's exactly what a tournament organizer is able to do: to set the rules as they see fit and then you are able to either choose to come to their tournament or not. A T.O. could say: No MEQ armies allowed at this tournament, and if that's what they want, that's what the tournament is going to be.

Kilkrazy wrote:The FAQ cannot be imposed on anyone, so people running their own tournaments can continue to use their own if they wish.

It cannot be imposed on anyone?

So the local RTT's can go eff themselves and their 'silly' rules without the almighty FAQ, but if we show up to play at a Indy:

THE FAQ IS IMPOSED ON US.

If people want to play miniature game developer, there are alot of places willing to take nascent game designers on.

I know the game is flawed, but adding another player-created layer of flaws is as they say "BAD".

Not having a official FAQ from GW is in my honest opinion, as bad as having a rules committee made up of players running regional tournaments pushing their own FAQ on us.

GW has been lying to us for years about 40K FAQ's. Now we have to accept a player-based FAQ that is so full of meddling it's a rewrite of the game without input from the very same game company that can't manage a FAQ because their own ineptitude is so massive?

Lots of new players will in my estimate not be very pleased when they show up at a Indy and see a FAQ with more rules in it than the rulebook. The experienced players will have a field day with Adepticon 40K rules.

Oh and just so I'm not being a dark cloud, here's the silver lining: This FAQ can so mess up the game and cause so many issues at GW events, that GW will have to get off their ass and issue some FAQ's. That said, I think it'll just mess the game up and GW will continue to do nothing.

My overall response?

Thanks, but no thanks.

Effort appreciated, effort acknowledged, bin the whole kit and instead engage GW in making a cohesive FAQ.

Good luck with that effort, if you choose to make it.

Tournaments always have and always will have their own set of rules from missions to scoring that players have to abide by if they choose to play in the tournament. No one forces you to attend the tournament but you do have to accept whatever rules they choose to utilize.

If a TO wants to use this FAQ for their tournament, great! If you don't like the FAQ you will now have an easy way of telling which tournaments you want to avoid.


But I do want to make sure that everyone knows besides all the arguments we're still looking for feedback from people who would like to help improve this FAQ with constructive criticism.

Stelek wrote:
Effort appreciated, effort acknowledged, bin the whole kit and instead engage GW in making a cohesive FAQ.

Gee, is that all we have to do is engage GW in making a FAQ?

That is simple! Ok everyone, let’s engage them! Because I guess up until we do that they did not know there is a ton of problems with there rules. I guess that when Phil Kelly had a million questions that asked him about the Eldar codex and he said that Alisso was working on a FAQ that should be out shortly (that was 8 months ago), that they forget about it unless somebody engages them.

And Stelek, since you only play in one store, and you run the RTTs there, I would not sweat this FAQ. This is more for those people who travel to events that want to be on the same page as there opponents.

Also I do not see where any of the rules greatly benefit certain armies. They seem like they are mostly rulings over frequently debated rules. I was thinking about using Ahriman at the circuit invitational, but he had a ruling that was unfavorable. So what? That changes things a little, but I am aware of the debate regarding him, and I was disappointed by this ruling, I am not surprised by it.

Are there any rulings that completely gimp an army, or changes the game so radically that it is now unplayable for certain armies?

yakface wrote:
Tournaments always have and always will have their own set of rules from missions to scoring that players have to abide by if they choose to play in the tournament. No one forces you to attend the tournament but you do have to accept whatever rules they choose to utilize.

If a TO wants to use this FAQ for their tournament, great! If you don't like the FAQ you will now have an easy way of telling which tournaments you want to avoid.


But I do want to make sure that everyone knows besides all the arguments we're still looking for feedback from people who would like to help improve this FAQ with constructive criticism.

Actually I don't know what the bloody hell 'missions' and 'scoring' has to do with remaking 40K with a major rules rewrite.

The rules people 'choose to utilize' at local tournaments are the GW rules, flawed as they may be.

How would I know what 'FAQ' someone is or isn't using--call them up and ask if they're using the Adepticon 40K rules or the GW 40K rules?

Are you serious?

The sheer size of the FAQ alone is more than enough to stifle interest in reading the whole thing. It seems those that read the whole thing are none too happy with the meddling that's gone on. Is that a clue?

Blackmoor wrote:And Stelek, since you only play in one store, and you run the RTTs there, I would not sweat this FAQ. This is more for those people who travel to events that want to be on the same page as there opponents.

Can you stop promulgating that lie already? It's getting old.

Blackmoor wrote:
Also I do not see where any of the rules greatly benefit certain armies.

Open your eyes.

Blackmoor wrote:
Are there any rulings that completely gimp an army, or changes the game so radically that it is now unplayable for certain armies?

I mentioned quite a few. You can rebut any time.

Edit:

Skyth, Comments like that can only help to derail the situation further.


--yakface

Stelek wrote:
Actually I don't know what the bloody hell 'missions' and 'scoring' has to do with remaking 40K with a major rules rewrite.

Tournament organizers often use custom missions for their tournaments. Each of those custom missions constitutes a change in rules for the game. In a many cases, custom missions represent a larger change to the way a game of 40K is played more than a FAQ ever will. Many tournaments utilize comp/sportsmanship scores, each of which will have an impact on the way the game is played and/or armies are constructed. Again, these are changes to the game authorized by the tournament organizer.

Finally, many tournaments ALREADY use event or store FAQs that alter the game to fit the way the tournament organizer or local players interpret some of the rules issues.

The rules people 'choose to utilize' at local tournaments are the GW rules, flawed as they may be.

Except that each and every person shows up with their own version of the rules in their head which is exactly what creates arguments at a tournament and which is why many stores and tournaments come up with their own set of house rules and/or FAQs.

How would I know what 'FAQ' someone is or isn't using--call them up and ask if they're using the Adepticon 40K rules or the GW 40K rules?

The same way anyone finds out what rules a tournament utilizes. Either the tournament orgaizer posts the information or you call and ask them. For example, a tournament organizer will usually post their list of tournament rules: "Armies are XX numbers of points, the following armies will be allowed, sportsmanship will be judged on the following". In that list of rules it would be ridiculously easy to say: "We will be using this FAQ for our tournament, it can be downloaded from the internet here."

Are you serious?

The sheer size of the FAQ alone is more than enough to stifle interest in reading the whole thing. It seems those that read the whole thing are none too happy with the meddling that's gone on. Is that a clue?

That is a ridiculous generalization. I understand that you don't care for the FAQ, I understand that you think it is meddling and I understand that you think it does more harm than good. You honestly don't need to post any of these things anymore.

Yak - for what it is worth, the endeavor that is being undertaken here has the full support of the entire Toledo group. Even though we do not agree with every ruling, we believe this document provides a solid fundamental basis for creating a better overall experience for everyone by minimizing rules conflicts. It is a document that is sorely needed in the community and we appreciate the efforts of everyone involved.

I have a much better idea. Hide this FAQ from public view and just have all the judges rule on any dispute based on what is written in this FAQ. The nimwits who complain won't have to know where the judges are basing their rulings on and when they can't play the way they thought they could, they will have accept it. The judge has the final say afterall.

There is no need to let everyone see how you will rule a dispute beforehand when a minority (AND IT IS A MINORITY) complain, complain, complain. The judges rules are final, right or wrong. This has been standard tournament fare for as long as I can remember so just make the rulings at the moment and use this FAQ, but don't show anyone.

When I was running the Gladiator Jeff would also worry about having strict rules so players wouldn't try to take advantage of the tournament. I told him to keep the rules vague, but tell players any cheating would get them thrown out. If players don't know how far they can take the rules, they are less likely to try and bend the rules, especially when I let it be know I had no reservations of throwing them out. Very few rules arguments and virtually no cheating followed.

Darth, that is the most ridiculous nonsense ever. This FAQ attempts to make everything transparent so that there are no disputes between two players that meet up from anywhere and decide to play a game.

Whether you agree or disagree, you can't argue that as long as both people know the same rules, there will be much fewer rules disputes. And for that, this FAQ does an excellent job.

AND, this FAQ was not dreamed up at random. It was a comprehensive effort, through the use of opinion polls and actual rules question threads from Dakka as well as many other forums. So enough with the whole conspiracy theory crap already, its really tiring.

White - Just a side note: He can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that some of Darth's comments purposely being facetious.

One quick side note - what is better?

Option #1: Having an 88 page FAQ to review for grey areas?

Option #2: Having to look through for example Dakka Dakka's 1,800+ rules discussion threads with 24,000+ messages to determine how people can expect to play everything?

Just some food for thought.

That was extremely generous of the group (whomever it is) to offer their time for something that obviously took quite a bit of work.

That said, it seems from Yaks post you guys knew 5th was coming out yet continued working on it. Why? All of your work will be invalidated in 5-7 months? Adepticon and a handful of tournaments...and even then there seems to be resentment towards the rulings.

I think this is a great idea for vets but I don't know about the masses.

Thanks very much, Yak, for the description of the reasoning behind the Escalation ruling. I (for one) had forgotten about the issue with BT, DA, and BA pod armies, and given that factor, it makes perfect sense and I agree that this is the optimal compromise needed to keep things consistent.

I think the sheer number of answers labeled as changes is giving a lot of people the heebie-jeebies. I think your conservatism in using the phrase [rules change] every time you weren’t sure whether you were making a change or just a [clarification] is the root of a lot of people’s anxiety and displeasure. They’re too accustomed to people erring the other way, and thus they genuinely think there are fewer gaps and unresolved issues in the core rules than there really are. Maybe on the next revision you should switch some more of the questions where you were on the fence about whether it was really a change or just a clarification over to being labeled as [clarification]s. Just to make the document less frightening.

AgeOfEgos wrote:That was extremely generous of the group (whomever it is) to offer their time for something that obviously took quite a bit of work.

That said, it seems from Yaks post you guys knew 5th was coming out yet continued working on it. Why? All of your work will be invalidated in 5-7 months? Adepticon and a handful of tournaments...and even then there seems to be resentment towards the rulings.

I think this is a great idea for vets but I don't know about the masses.

Well, I've been working on some sort of FAQ for several years now. It started out as just a collection of questions (the "Dakka FAQ") back when GW actually wrote fairly regular FAQs I had dreamed of maybe being able to submit it someday for consideration.

As I realized that would never happen (as their FAQ output dwindled to nothing) someone mentioned in a forum why didn't someone just answer all the questions so that some sort of unofficial FAQ document could be made for those who wanted to use it.

As I was working on creating that (the "Yak FAQ"), last year's adepticon FAQ came out and I noticed that they had used a whole bunch of questions from the original "Dakka" FAQ. The problem was, the Dakka FAQ questions were written in a way to challenge the game designers not to be able to answer the question without thinking about the ramification of the answer. In other words, it had questions nestled within questions ("what happens if this happens? What about this then? If that, then what?" etc).

This meant that last year's adepticon FAQ was overly long in the question department and rather short in the answer department (IMHO), meaning that you could still misconstrue the ruling based on the short answer in some cases.

Somehow I got a hold of the adepticon FAQ crew and I offered them my new 'yak FAQ' that I had just completed, but since they had already put so much work into their existing document they decided to stick with what they had and just add on the questions in my Yak FAQ they didn't already have.

The result was a pretty comprehensive document, but the organization and consistency of the actual writing was kind of all over the place (as each of the questions was submitted by players rather than crafted by someone in order to clarify meaning).

Well, at Adepticon last year, I spoke with Jeff Chua and we talked about me converting my yak FAQ into a more tournament appropriate document. I spent the last year doing just that, with concrete news about the existence of 5th edition rolling in just a month or two ago (at least to me).


However, I am fully committed to reformatting the document where and when needed to cover 5th edition. Based on the PDF, about half the rules question in the main rulebook section will disappear, but there are some that look to not be covered (if the text stays the same). In addition, I'm sure there will be plenty of new rules issues to address as well. As for the codex sections, especially since GW doesn't seem to publish FAQs for their recent ones, I think those sections will largely remain, and I'm sure many of the 5th edition changes will produce rules issues that will also need to be clarified.

yakface wrote:


However, I am fully committed to reformatting the document where and when needed to cover 5th edition. Based on the PDF, about half the rules question in the main rulebook section will disappear, but there are some that look to not be covered (if the text stays the same). In addition, I'm sure there will be plenty of new rules issues to address as well. As for the codex sections, especially since GW doesn't seem to publish FAQs for their recent ones, I think those sections will largely remain, and I'm sure many of the 5th edition changes will produce rules issues that will also need to be clarified.

Reflecting, I didn't think my response all the way through. Given the current PDF/text, some of the issues have been resolved yet I can see where this FAQ will still help. Stressing "Given the current text" of course.

Actually, 5th Edition might actually be beneficial to your acceptance of the community (Even if it's burns alot of time you've spent on 4th).

If you release a very early FAQ on 5th...the more accepted/validated your FAQ will be. The problem you are more than likely experiencing with vets now is their acceptance on their group rulings (Probably by and large RAW). However, if you change minds early...well you won't need to change minds . So release a FAQ early for 5th!

Hell, given the current LOS and wound allocation wording...you might want to get started now

/Just noticed your location, what the hell happened last night!

Okay I have read through the entire FAQ last night and while I do not agree with all rulings I found it to be a good job overall addressing a multitude of frequently asked questions.

- G

I guess I should go to Indy tournaments more.

While I encounter huge amounts of cheating asshats at GW events, I encounter very little in the way of rules issues.

Usually 1 per 5 games, and usually my opponent unsure how a rule works wanting a judge to tell him how it works.

Is this not the case at Indy's? Is the environment so full of rules lawyers that a huge FAQ like this is required?

If it isn't, and tournaments aren't decided on rules issues but on: Cheating, Social Engineering, Bad Scoring Systems, Paid For Paint Jobs, and then List/Generalship....

Why do we need this FAQ, which addresses none of those issues?

How does this "improve" the tournament scene?

Yes yes, everyone can see how you've changed this or that but the problem is you haven't answered EVERY rules question out there--not by a long shot. So if the problems of rules do exist, since you haven't answered them all AND the ones you have "answered" are game changes...it looks like this FAQ does nothing but shift the emphasis from GW's rules being unclear in some cases, to yak's FAQ being unfair (as some say) or also unclear.

How is this a good thing? I don't know where people play, but I've never encountered 'FAQs' but at the Indy tournament scene--which is a major reason I have no interest in going. Call me a reasonable person able to work out rules problems amicably, which might be very rare and/or crazy, but I want to play 40K.

Flaws and all. I don't need someone who isn't with GW putting their stick in the pond and muddying the already murky water some more.

Maybe this helps you make sense of what I'm saying--less is more. A simple FAQ this is not. To me, that means it's already failed at it's task of simplifying the game.

If you aren't trying to simplify the game, and speed things up, then you are indeed trying to rewrite the rules as you see fit and that's best left to GW.

Even as bad as they are at it.

Let's get the points out there in a concise manner so we don't have to keep retreading the same ground.

People that don't like the idea of a big FAQ say:
Joe Newbie is not going to read it in advance, and will not be prepared for the changes it makes to the game.
While it answers many questions, it does not answer them all.
It's so big that the average player will not familiarize themselves with all of it.

People that don't like the idea of a FAQ that is viewed as the standard say:
I don't want it forced on me when I go to some other event that chooses to use it.

People that don't like the idea of a FAQ that changes the RAW say:
RAW is playable, going against it in any instance is meddling.
It's not possible to be unbiased, therefore biased changes work their way into Rules Change items.

People that don't like the idea of a FAQ:
The rules are fine and I don't have problems with them. A FAQ will only cause me problems then.
Changes will break the game.
Ruling X is against the way it should be.
If you're not GW, I can't hear you lalalalala.

Fair summary so far?

Fair indeed.

I don't know if I'd lalalalala to yak's face though.

Stelek wrote:
Call me a reasonable person able to work out rules problems amicably, which might be very rare and/or crazy, but I want to play 40K.

This from a man that scored an 18 in sportsmanship at the LVGT?


Again, you do no know how differently your local group plays than others until you play some games with others from across the country. When you play at an event like that, you might think that there is only one way to play 40k, and you will be surprised at how many rules that others play differently.

If you wait until you get to a tournament and then have a rules dispute and then find out what the judges rulings are on a lot of issues then you are going to be very unhappy.

For example: Do units in a transport count as a scoring unit? If you think you know the answer and play accordingly, you will be very upset when the judge tells you that you are wrong, and it cost you the game.

Just and observation ..

"Usually 1 per 5 games, and usually my opponent unsure how a rule works wanting a judge to tell him how it works. "

Taking your own average .. then at Adepticon in our 40K .. 100 table player environment .. you got 20 rules calls per round on various tables in the event. 4 round tourney that's 80 table calls x # events. I'm betting that is even on the low side because while it might be 1 table with issues .. they might need several calls or repeat visits. Some of those calls are pretty heated and game changing.

I'm not knocking anyone here..but the things that work in a 10-30 person RTT at a local game store don't translate well to an event of AdeptiCon size and scale. I've ran all sizes of events. They all have different challenges. But AdeptiCon has some unique challenges that until you are on the judges side are not all that apparent.

As for the size of the FAQ .. well the Direwolf FAQ is pretty well accepted ... it's considerably larger or has been at times, I'm guessing had similar kickback, but overall I think has been a good thing for the game of WFB.

Those IndyGT events on the GW Circuit for WFB .. guess what ... using the Direwolf FAQ. I don't see a problem with it. AdeptiCon is not a GW event. It's a gamer ran convention that is part of the GW circuit. The GW circuit is structured so that you can compete just by attending the "Offical" GW events. So I don't see an issue. TO's have the right to make up whatever rules they see fit. Some stranger than others .. Wild Bill's events come to mind... : )

BTW: Darth .. priceless .. It's the event judge secret frat faq! Written in invisable ink and only decodable by our signet rings.

It seems to me that opposition to the FAQ can be divided (very roughly) into two camps:
1) People who don't see a reason for any FAQ and/or oppose any non-GW attempt at a "standard" FAQ

2) People who disagree with this FAQ in particular, either based on how it was constructed or the nature of the rulings there-in.

In my opinion, both complaints can be rebutted.

Does Adepticon need an FAQ? As pointed out above, adepticon has hundreds of games going on, mulitple rounds, and three seperate tournaments. With mulitple judges over several days, there are bound to be rules disputes. While judges usually do a good job, having a standard template for many of the more common issues is a good thing, making sure that rules are consistent from table to table, round to round, and day to day. Imagine a scenario where you are playing a tight game, and a rules dispute arises. Assume that instead of the FAQ, adepticon has several top notch judges, experts in the rules. Let's assume also that the dispute you have is not something that is apparent from RAW. Any ruling that judge makes will be based, at least partially, not on rules, but on his discretion. Imagine instead that both players had access to the FAQ, which addressed the dispute in question. Rather than waiting breathlessly for an answer (that could go either way), a player can point to the judge how the FAQ agrees, get the ok from the judge, and the round continues.

In short, the FAQ eliminates uncertainty. No matter how certain you are that you play 40k properly, the judge can disagree. Armed with a FAQ, there is far less chance of a bad ruling in game!

So, feeling comfortable that Adepticon needs such an FAQ, should it become standard for the nation? That will depend mostly on it's success, and it's strength, as well as how future TOs view it. Some TOs will reject it, because they simply don't like it. Others will flock to it, seeing it as a way to have consistent rulings with perhaps less experienced judges (clubs that rotate judging will love it, I'm guessing). Admittedly, the internet is a repository of people with strong views of personal liberty and choice. Many people will oppose an attempt at national standards simply because they oppose national standards. That's fine, until you walk into a new store in a new state, or a new player walks into your store, and has a different view on how to play.

Given gamers, I doubt any non-GW FAQ will attain universl acceptance. I'd imagine the large tournaments will adopt it or something strikingly similar. Adding the lines "The adepticon FAQ with the following amendments will be used" is not hard to add to flier, neither is writing house rules into an adendum. At least be prepared to see it being used to argue a point.

The second big complaint is the nature of individual rulings. Many of them are labeled rules changes, and some of them actually are legitimate changes. This is simultaneously a more valid, but less pressing concern. It's more valid because if an FAQ is bad, poorly though our, or offensive to gamers, it will be of little valid. It's less pressing because this particular FAQ is both well reasoned and open to discussion and change. Concerns are heard, arguments are weighed, and the final document will reflect a compromise and consensus that might not make everybody 100% happy, but is as close as possible.

My final point is more of a question than an assertion. It may sound rhetorical, but it's not. it's this:

To what extent, if any, do those that oppose the FAQ think it will make the game less fun, less enjoyable, or less balance? Meaning if you played five games under these rulings, how do you think it would affect your game?

GEN.03 – Q: Can players mount multiple models
on the same base? If so, how is that base treated
in a game?
A: All models that have their own characteristics must be
mounted on a separate base [RAW]. In the rare case
where Games Workshop provides a single base for
multiple models each with their own characteristics (such
as IG heavy weapon teams or Ork Warboss w/Attack
Squig), they are treated as separate models mounted on
a single base. Any time a model is removed as a casualty
from the base, place a marker by the base to note this
fact [rules change]. Refer to the following guidelines
when dealing with separate models on a single base:

You should probably delete the example of an ork warboss with attack squig as that no longer applies. Wouldn't want to generate more confusion.

Good job.

Thanks budro. Someone else already pointed that out and it will be removed in the next update.

Blackmoor wrote:This from a man that scored an 18 in sportsmanship at the LVGT?

Will you knock off the whiney ass trolling already?

Blackmoor wrote:Again, you do no know how differently your local group plays than others until you play some games with others from across the country. When you play at an event like that, you might think that there is only one way to play 40k, and you will be surprised at how many rules that others play differently.

Saying I don't play games from across the country so I'm not allowed to comment....hmmm, until you play games internationally instead of just the US, you can't comment either.

How's that sound to ya?

Oh right, I *do* play games across the country. And internationally. So maybe I'm more qualified than you to rate how much trouble I've had with rules lawyers? (Near Zero.)

That's all I'm talking about. Can you leave the rest of your bs out of this conversation please? Thanks a ton.

Those IndyGT events on the GW Circuit for WFB .. guess what ... using the Direwolf FAQ. I don't see a problem with it. AdeptiCon is not a GW event. It's a gamer ran convention that is part of the GW circuit. The GW circuit is structured so that you can compete just by attending the "Offical" GW events. So I don't see an issue.

Many of the Direwolf's are the Geeks... guys that have been involved with GW Studio writers for eons so their FAQ is going to be more universally accepted because they already have the 'in' with the Studio. How many of Adepticon's FAQ team are 'in' with the Studio.

For example: the unassaultable unit due to the 1" rule. Try playing for the final position in a major event and having a judge rule that you can't charge a unit with a character. Why - because a friendly unit behind is in base to base and the bases are 25 mm, which is 0.04" smaller then 1". That's pure RAW and also pure stupidity.

I don't agree with the rule either (and a lot of others too!), but the rule is clear and you were beat by a dirty RAW trick. Did you think you could get away with it against your opponent? Did you believe that he wouldn't notice or wouldn't say anything? You should've softened up a unit first to enable you to charge without being within 1" of a unit that you weren't assaulting. Changing the rule for Adepticon is not the answer, it just helps your style of play.

Ultimately, I don't care... its a game of toy soldiers and most need to get their panties pulled out of their crotch and get on with it. Adepticon is cool and fun and the FAQ will help people get on with the game instead of wasting time discussing rules problems.

Stelek wrote:Saying I don't play games from across the country so I'm not allowed to comment....hmmm, until you play games internationally instead of just the US, you can't comment either.
How's that sound to ya?
Oh right, I *do* play games across the country. And internationally. So maybe I'm more qualified than you to rate how much trouble I've had with rules lawyers? (Near Zero.)
That's all I'm talking about. Can you leave the rest of your bs out of this conversation please? Thanks a ton.

Well - Blackmoor may not be able to comment from the international standpoint, but I sure can. I will say this from personal experience along with Mike Mutscheller that we each had major rules issues in our UK games that were exceptionally game changing. Enough so for me that the Spanish/American War almost started up again on the 2nd to top table in the 5th round of the UK GT Finals. We (the Toledo group as a whole) have also had similar rules issues at the US GTs, Gamesday events and AdeptiCon. None even close to being as heated as mine in the UK. However, any tournament vet will be able to attest that these problems exist. Just because you choose to ignore them is irrelevant.

Based on our extensive travel and tournament experience, this type of document is needed. Whether it is this document or another one, it would be ideal to have one FAQ that everyone plays by at the tournament events. As already posted, this document provides a solid, fundamental basis towards this ideal.

Polonius wrote:
To what extent, if any, do those that oppose the FAQ think it will make the game less fun, less enjoyable, or less balance? Meaning if you played five games under these rulings, how do you think it would affect your game?

Here's my primary answer: "Good men don't need laws. Bad men are unaffected by them."

Here's a few specific ones, I'll just take one every 5 pages or so:

RB.26.03 – Q: If a unit has “mixed armor” is the
wound allocated via the “torrent of fire” rule
resolved before allocating the rest of the wounds
on the unit? If so, can this casualty potentially
change which armor type is the majority?
A: A “torrent of fire” wound is fully resolved before
moving onto the mixed armor wound allocation. This
casualty can indeed alter the majority armor composition
of the unit [clarification].

Totally worthless meddling. Why do Black Templars get dicked over for no apparent reason? Hey I shot your 6 3+/5 4+ squad, hmmm put a wound on your 3+ save guy and if you fail; all my heavy bolter shots go into your 4+ guys and WIN for me! Oh yeah, all the bolter shots--those can go on your 3+ save guys.

RB.76E.02 – Q: When using the Mixed Armor rules,
if an Armor save set contains models with
differing Invulnerable saves (or has Invulnerable
Saves that are better than the unit’s cover save),
how are the wounds divided up within the single
Armor save type?
A: They must be further divided within the Armor save
type by using the standard Mixed Armor procedure, but
treat differing Invulnerable saves (or Invulnerable saves
that are better than the unit’s cover save) as different
save “types” for this allocation. The player may choose
which invulnerable save type to begin allocating wounds
to [rules change].

More meddling. My Dark Eldar Dracon with Warriors are in the OPEN. I get shot at long range with a lascannon. Well, I don't have a invulnerable save for the warriors but I *do* have a invulnerable save on my dracon. Gee, I'll take my 2+ save. Don't have heavy bolters, just have lascannons? Well good luck attritioning my unit away. The consequences of unintended action seems pretty clear to me.

RB.85.02A – Q: Are an Independent Character’s
accompanying Wargear models worth any Victory
Points for being destroyed?
A: Unless specified otherwise, no. Only the status of the
actual character model at the end of the game matters
for Victory Point purposes [rules change].

Gee really? Tau players with drones are getting a major boost. Obviously since it's written into the rules, GW didn't really mean it and somehow it's not "clear" enough for all of us poor Tau players.

MCO.01C – Q: Can a Psyker who is allowed to
shoot due to an Auspex/Surveyor, use his psychic
abilities instead?
A: Only if the psychic ability is normally used instead of
shooting and it directly targets a single enemy unit [rules
change]. The psyker may use his abilities against each
enemy unit he shoots at (even with the same ability), but
he must pass a separate psychic test (if applicable) each
time.

Wow so...single power psykers can potentially use their powers an unlimited number of times against as many units as they can see? Man sign me up for that program.

ACo.GEN.01 – Q: Can an Armored Company take
Deamonhunter, Witch Hunter or Kroot Mercenary
allies?
A: Armored Company units may never be allies in another
army [rules change]. Armored Companies may take
Daemonhunter or Witch Hunter allies, however only units
that have dedicated transports are allowed, meaning
Kroot Mercenary units may not be taken [rules change].

Well gee, this looks like someone just gimped an army list. Nah, that won't affect anyone.

BA.26C.04 – Q: Do Inquisitorial Mystics allow free
shots at units arriving by Drop Pod?
A: Yes. The shooting is resolved after the Drop Pod lands
and the passengers disembark. Either the Drop Pod or
the disembarked unit may be the targeted, but not both
[rules change].

Just pointing out the inequality of the FAQ here. Mystics get screwed, and can't kill drop pods along with their cargo (for whatever game breaking reason this is) but you can fire psykers like machine guns at infiltrating units? Yeah, ok.

CSM.54.03 – Q: Can Typhus use his Force weapon
ability on multiple models in the same assault
phase?
A: Yes, but note that the instant-kill ability is not tested
for until after all wounds inflicted by Typhus are allocated
to enemy models [RAW].

I mentioned this one earlier, but every time I see it it makes me gag. Typhus can kill 4 Carnifexes in a turn? Gee, GW didn't clearly restrict force weapon attacks or anything.
I'd be pissed if Typhus got into my army and killed all my characters because this ruling makes him powerful beyond the pale.

DH.21F.01 – Q: Can Daemonhunters be taken as
allies in an army that also has Witch Hunter allies?
A: Yes, Daemonhunter and Witch Hunter units may both
be taken as allies in the same army [GW DH FAQ
overrule].

Why? GW deemed this combination too powerful, something I fully agree with. Yet another army list changed.

ELD.24C.01 – Q: If an Eldar unit finishes its fall
back move within 12” of a friendly Avatar (or he
moves within 12” of a unit that is falling back)
does the unit immediately regroup?
A: Yes, the unit immediately regroups but does not make
a consolidation move [rules change].

Mentioned before. Here's the problem. I shoot Unit A. Unit A breaks. Under the current rules, if I kill the Avatar dead on my turn--on your turn, your unit is still broken. It's a free regroup Eldar don't currently get--why is this being added? Don't tell me because people are too stupid to keep track of what units are broken or not!

ELD.39.02 -- Q: Can either Heavy Weapon
crewman fire the weapon regardless of where
they are in the unit?
A: Yes, the position of the gun is immaterial. Either
crewman (but not both at the same time) may fire the
weapon [RAW]. However, both team members must
remain within 2” of each other during the game where
possible [rules change].

Again, mentioned before--this ruling reduces the Eldar list. Is this a counterbalance for the above? It's not what Phil Kelly intended, so why was it changed?

ELD.49A.01 -- Q: Can Veil of Tears ever be nullified
or cancelled?
A: No. See RB.52.07.

You can't say 'NO' in the same FAQ you said 'YES'. :(

Is that enough? There are lots of examples in the FAQ of army list after army list either getting a boost, a nerf, both (at the same time!) or being changed completely.

Why is this being done? Specifically the line above, WHY? Is 40K not confusing enough, you better check the Adepticon FAQ to make sure your army is the one GW gave you?

How stupid is that? (Rhetorical).

Fabricator General wrote:I don't agree with the rule either (and a lot of others too!), but the rule is clear and you were beat by a dirty RAW trick. Did you think you could get away with it against your opponent? Did you believe that he wouldn't notice or wouldn't say anything? You should've softened up a unit first to enable you to charge without being within 1" of a unit that you weren't assaulting. Changing the rule for Adepticon is not the answer, it just helps your style of play.

Ultimately, I don't care... its a game of toy soldiers and most need to get their panties pulled out of their crotch and get on with it. Adepticon is cool and fun and the FAQ will help people get on with the game instead of wasting time discussing rules problems.

Yes - you want to know why I thought I could get away with it? Because we agreed on it prior to the game. I asked all of my opponents that exact question prior to starting all of my games in the UK. We also asked how they were playing terrain and a number of other questions just to ensure that we were on the same page. When it came down to do or die, my opponent so gratiously changed his position and "I never agreed to that". In fact one of his friends came up to me and apologized afterwards since he was there when we were discussing the rules prior to deployment. So before you comment - you may want to be sure you have all the facts.

Inquisitor_Malice wrote:

Stelek wrote:Saying I don't play games from across the country so I'm not allowed to comment....hmmm, until you play games internationally instead of just the US, you can't comment either.
How's that sound to ya?
Oh right, I *do* play games across the country. And internationally. So maybe I'm more qualified than you to rate how much trouble I've had with rules lawyers? (Near Zero.)
That's all I'm talking about. Can you leave the rest of your bs out of this conversation please? Thanks a ton.

Well - Blackmoor may not be able to comment from the international standpoint, but I sure can. I will say this from personal experience along with Mike Mutscheller that we each had major rules issues in our UK games that were exceptionally game changing. Enough so for me that the Spanish/American War almost started up again on the 2nd to top table in the 5th round of the UK GT Finals. We (the Toledo group as a whole) have also had similar rules issues at the US GTs, Gamesday events and AdeptiCon. None even close to being as heated as mine in the UK. However, any tournament vet will be able to attest that these problems exist. Just because you choose to ignore them is irrelevant.

Based on our extensive travel and tournament experience, this type of document is needed. Whether it is this document or another one, it would be ideal to have one FAQ that everyone plays by at the tournament events. As already posted, this document provides a solid, fundamental basis towards this ideal.

Woah, who said anything about ignoring these problems?

Playing internationally is WAY different. Even in Australia it's way different than elsewhere. Canada has it's quirks. The UK plays by it's own screwy rules. So does Germany, Spain, and Italy. In the US, West plays differently than East in quite a few ways.

Do you really think you can put out a FAQ that will cover even 20% of the rules questions while leaving the other 80% unanswered--or worse yet, do you think this FAQ is worth the paper it's printed on outside of the US? I can assure you, it isn't. Even if that isn't the goal, you do realize if a European player comes to the US (or Vice Versa) they'll have total system shock because the BASIS of the FAQ, the rules; are completely different in the country of origin's eyes?

You cannot FAQ internationally without locals helping you do so. So the FAQ fails on that point.
You cannot FAQ for just the US because in the end, GW events here will refuse to use it. So the FAQ fails on that point.
You cannot FAQ and issue rules changes and army rewrites without pissing people off. So the FAQ fails on that point.
You cannot FAQ and leave out the answers to the nonsense people pull at the Indy's "because the rules say/don't say so". So the FAQ fails on that point.

I'm not trying to piss yak off. I know what it's like to make a huge amount of effort for GW and get the crapper in response.

I'm telling you as a reasonable player, this FAQ is crap. It doesn't answer the real gakky stuff people can pull, and in the end all it currently does is screw new players.

That is what GW has been doing at their events (alot of you know my opinion on this already) and now you're going to do it at the Indy's too?

I know I'd be pretty pissed if some yokel told me I couldn't do something because of some online FAQ that GW doesn't even endorse says. People get pissed at GW's FAQ's, but they HAVE to accept them. All it takes to create drama at the Indy's is one person winning a tournament because of the FAQ. Better to 4+ it than deal with that nonsense IMO.

Stelek, you gave a list of changes, and they certainly could change some games. The question I asked wasn't "are there things that the FAQ changes," but to what extent would it be unbalancing or unfun.

Am I to take it that you consider that list of changes to be so dramatic that the game is completely unbalanced?

muwhe wrote:Taking your own average .. then at Adepticon in our 40K .. 100 table player environment .. you got 20 rules calls per round on various tables in the event. 4 round tourney that's 80 table calls x # events. I'm betting that is even on the low side because while it might be 1 table with issues .. they might need several calls or repeat visits. Some of those calls are pretty heated and game changing.

I don't think it's as bad as that. Most of the time at properly run tournaments with enough staffing, you should have a judge available every 4-5 tables. If you can't manage that, having a FAQ isn't going to help because who the feth prints out the FAQ's and brings them, but for their own army?

That's all I'd ever expect a player to bring and understand. It does behoove them to know every army and it's rules, but that isn't actually required to play.

All I know is, with 20 staff on hand at the LVGT and some 200 tables going; I all of the judges walking around bored almost all the time.

They didn't have a FAQ, but that event was one of the best GW run events in well over 5 years for me.

What's that say about the need for a FAQ?

Nope. I consider them changes without GW making said changes, and that isn't the game people are coming to play.

With all it's flaws, it's still a game and it's only a bunch of really bored rules lawyers that seem intent on legislating 'bad' from 'good'.

Which has been proven time and again, cannot be done.

The asshats are still going to come play. Some of you guys, I'm sure, fit that role. I'm sure you see a 'flaw' in the FAQ you can use to your advantage, but aren't saying anything because you hope it goes unnoticed so your uber bang bang death army can romp it's way to victory through the loopholes Yak + Council haven't closed.

So the FAQ dicks over new players, and...does nothing for the asshats.

You can't legislate good into asshats. Ever. Period.

Stop trying! Only the good players suffer.

Stelek wrote:Woah, who said anything about ignoring these problems?

Playing internationally is WAY different. Even in Australia it's way different than elsewhere. Canada has it's quirks. The UK plays by it's own screwy rules. So does Germany, Spain, and Italy. In the US, West plays differently than East in quite a few ways.

Do you really think you can put out a FAQ that will cover even 20% of the rules questions while leaving the other 80% unanswered--or worse yet, do you think this FAQ is worth the paper it's printed on outside of the US? I can assure you, it isn't. Even if that isn't the goal, you do realize if a European player comes to the US (or Vice Versa) they'll have total system shock because the BASIS of the FAQ, the rules; are completely different in the country of origin's eyes?

You cannot FAQ internationally without locals helping you do so. So the FAQ fails on that point.
You cannot FAQ for just the US because in the end, GW events here will refuse to use it. So the FAQ fails on that point.
You cannot FAQ and issue rules changes and army rewrites without pissing people off. So the FAQ fails on that point.
You cannot FAQ and leave out the answers to the nonsense people pull at the Indy's "because the rules say/don't say so". So the FAQ fails on that point.

I'm not trying to piss yak off. I know what it's like to make a huge amount of effort for GW and get the crapper in response.

I'm telling you as a reasonable player, this FAQ is crap. It doesn't answer the real gakky stuff people can pull, and in the end all it currently does is screw new players.

That is what GW has been doing at their events (alot of you know my opinion on this already) and now you're going to do it at the Indy's too?

I know I'd be pretty pissed if some yokel told me I couldn't do something because of some online FAQ that GW doesn't even endorse says. People get pissed at GW's FAQ's, but they HAVE to accept them. All it takes to create drama at the Indy's is one person winning a tournament because of the FAQ. Better to 4+ it than deal with that nonsense IMO.

I agree with you that an overall international FAQ is not feasible at this point in time. That said though - having the FAQs posted ahead of time by the different international groups is better than not having them. This is potentially a step towards a US standard.
The FAQ doesn't fail because people are initially pissed. The FAQ would fail if in time it is not widely accepted. - people hate change, but yet change can be good.
The FAQ doesn't fail because GW doesn't use it (ie: direwolf FAQ). - no other point is needed here. As AdeptiCon has proven - if you do something right, you can have an influence on GW.
The FAQ minimizes the overall nonsense that people can pull. Therefore it succeeds.

It's the same thing. We (since I speak for my group) are telling you as reaonable players that this FAQ is a solid document. It is a living document that can address issues as they arise or a concensus is established.

I know I would be pretty pissed on some standard rule that 99% of the people play with and some Yokel told me that we had to 4+ it. Better to have one document that can easily be referenced than 4+ the same issue over and over and over and over and over again and again and again. Where is the logic in that?