If you are looking to download the latest version of the INATFAQ (or the INAT appendix) please visit the new INATFAQ homepage here: INATFAQ HOME PAGE(and you can always find that page from the 'INATFAQ' link at the top of any page on Dakka).
If you are looking to submit questions for inclusion in future iterations of the INATFAQ, then you've come to the right place!
The point of this thread is a place for you to submit questions you have about the Warhammer 40,000 5th edition rules (including codices) that you feel are not adequately clear in said rules. These questions, if legitimate, will be added to future editions of the INATFAQ (Independent National Warhammer 40,000 Tournament FAQ). Each edition of this independent FAQ is sent to Games Workshop so that they can take the questions and put them into their official FAQs (with whatever answer they want) if they so choose.
If you have a question you think needs to be covered in an official GWFAQ, please take the time to download the latest version of the INATFAQ (attached to this post below) and make sure that your question isn't already included. I know the document is very large, but it is organized by page numbers of the pertinent rulebooks/codices so it should be fairly easy for you to spot if your question is already included in there.
If you can, please try to include the page number of the codex/rulebook that your question stems from (if appropriate) along with your question, although you certainly don't have to!
Please DO NOT attempt to answer questions posted in this thread. That is not the point of this thread!
If you think the person asking the question has missed something very clear and obvious in the rules, then you can politely point out the rule and page you think they missed, but under no circumstance should you then engage in a discussion about the rule in question. If you need to have that discussion, OPEN ANOTHER THREAD IN THIS FORUM INSTEAD.
Rules discussions in this thread will be deleted to keep it clear for actual questions. Questions that are accepted to the INATFAQ will be deleted from this thread.
Thanks again to everyone who has taken time to help out with this project in the past and the future!
P.S. Just to be clear, Games Workshop 'thanked' myself and the rest of the Adepticon rules council in some of their official FAQs because they utilized some of the question and answer wording from our INATFAQ. I, and the rest of the Adepticon rules council, has absolutely no ability to get questions submitted to Games Workshop for consideration in their official FAQs beyond what any other gamer does (i.e. sending a question to GW via their mail/email address).
A suggestion if I may:
I think you should clarify how you deal with multiple modifiers to saves that might result it in being "better" than 2+.
For example, a Pathfinder Squad gets itself in a Ruined Structure that has been declared as a 3+ Cover save, which is then hit by 2 markerlights which are used to alter the cover save by -1, after which the Pathfinder Unit Goes to Ground..
Now, there are two ways this can go, imo. One only applies the 2+ "cap" at the end, and the second applies the 2+ cap at every point.
The "math" is as follows:
Example 1: Cap applies only at the "end":
Example 1: Cap applies at each "step":
As you can see, this can result in differing results depending how it is played. In my opinion, I think the rules support the 1st example, but I have come across people who think it is the 2nd. As such, I believe a clarification is in order.
Eidolon wrote:A section on psykers is much needed, but i guess its been for a while.
What exactly are you referencing?
The rules for psykers in the rulebook are pretty sparse and not very confusing so there is no 'psyker' section in the rulebook portion of the INAT.
Instead, we cover individual issues with codex specific psychic abilities in the individual codex sections. Is there a specific part about psychic powers you don't feel we adequately address?
I'm going to try to clean up this thread a bit by addressing questions that likely won't be included in the INAT with explanations as to why. Even though these questions may not end up in the INAT, I want to sincerely thank everyone who posted for taking the time to submit the question and implore you to keep doing so in the future when you encounter other truly ambiguous situations in the rules:
Arschbombe wrote:Can an IC disembark from a transport in the same movement phase in which a unit embarks on the transport and joins with the IC? Does it matter if the transport moves or not?
The rules here (pg 67) state: "If an independent character (or even more than one) and a unit are both embarked in the same vehicle, they are automatically joined, just as if the character was within 2" of the unit. If either an independent character or a unit is already in a vehicle, the other my join them by embarking too (assuming, of course, that there is enough space left)."
While the 2nd sentence seems to indicate a choice by the player whether the IC and unit join or not, within the context of the first sentence, it is clear that anytime an IC and a unit are embarked together they count as being joined.
This means, that if a transport vehicle contains an IC from a previous turn and a unit moves up and embarks, the two are now considered joined. This means the IC cannot then disembark (either before or after the vehicle moves) as he is part of a unit that has already completed its movement for the phase.
While I can see the potential ambiguity this question addresses, the truth is, that this is a fairly unlikely question to actually encounter in-game and more importantly, the actual process of asking the question and providing the answer in the FAQ will likely be confusing to more players than it actually helps (most people will simply have to crack open their rulebook just to try to figure out why this is even a question worth asking).
Asherian Command wrote:well this came up in a game. The Dedicated Transports. Apparentley not anymore you can't take tactical squads in lander raiders. has this happened to everyone? yes or no? Also Can my Space Marine Chapter Kill a Warlord titan? Also can we make our own characters, and use a variety of codexs?
These questions are either clearly covered in the core rules or they are not well written enough for me to quite figure out what you're actually asking. Either way, I don't think any of these are good candidates for inclusion in the INAT.
cravex wrote:+RB.67A.02 – Q: If a transport vehicle is ‘wrecked’
while completely surrounded by enemy models in
base contact, can the passengers disembark outside
of the surrounding enemies as long as they are still
within 2” of the vehicle’s hull but not within 1” of any
enemy (which is mathematically possible)?
A: No. Disembarking is a form of (non-normal) movement
and therefore they may not move through impassable terrain
and/or any models when disembarking [clarification].
The rulebook simply states they can't disembark. The Question I have is, does this mean they are destroyed as the vehicle in wrecked? are are they just trapped in the vehicle until the surrounding unit moves away?
The 'wrecked' rules on page 67 are clear: models that cannot disembark are destroyed.
TopC wrote:For Tau regarding KPS from gun drones that came from vehicles.
no FAQ saying this, but letters from GW says they should be counted as equipment, not KPs.. :( faq just needs updated..ugh
Unfortunately, until GW actually takes the time to FAQ some information regarding some units being immune to Kill Points, any and all units give up a Kill Point unless their rules specify otherwise. The Tau Drone rules even state that they form a UNIT after disembarking!
Our rule of thumb always is: Can the unit contest an enemy-held objective in an objective mission? If the answer is yes, then it is only fair that the unit is also worth a Kill Point in Annihilation missions or else you're getting the best of both worlds without any penalty.
willydstyle wrote:Do open-topped vehicles use the rules for fire points?
The rules for open-topped vehicles state that they do not have "specific fire points."
This could be read in two ways:
They don't have fire points at all, and thus don't follow the rules for fire points.
-or-
They use the rules for fire points, just don't have specific ones that you measure from.
If the first option is correct (which I don't think it is) then the passengers of open-topped vehicles may fire if the vehicle moves 12", or even 18-24" if the vehicle is fast.
I see what you're saying but I believe that the following sentence on page 70 does a pretty good job of clarifying what they mean:
"Instead, all passengers in an open-topped vehicle may fire, measuring range and line of sight from the hull of the vehicle."
So instead of being limited as to how many models can fire and from specific points on the vehicle, an open-topped vehicle allows passengers to fire from any point on the hull...but all other rules normally governing how embarked models fire would still be used (as these are the only ones that are used instead).
Now, I understand that there is enough ambiguity for you to ask the question, but I feel this definitely falls into the case of something that wouldn't actually come up enough in real life because the argument is so flimsy. Have you seen many or any examples of players attempting to argue this point at tournaments?
Burto89 wrote:Just wondering if burna's can be used as power weapons for boys that have been upgraded.... i.e. komandos with burnas?
This is standard practice in the newer codexes. Rules are listed on the pages of the units that use them the most, but then other units reference back to those rules. So yes, Kommandos with Burnas can use them as power weapons, but I don't think that's a frequent enough question to put into the FAQ.
Krimmsonscurge wrote:if I have a unit of guardsmen strung out in a line 2 inches apart could another unit of mine move through the gaps in the guardsmen unit? could an opponent move through the gaps?
if the squad that is in a line takes casualties and the figs are out of squad coherancy how does that affect the above situation?
Both of these situations are clearly covered by the core rules. You cannot move within 1" of an enemy model, but in some extreme examples it may be possible to move in between models in a unit (but its pretty rare to be able to do so without coming within 1" of any enemy). As such, I don't think this is a good candidate for inclusion in the FAQ.
Arschbombe wrote:I just noticed that the fire frenzy ruling from the earlier versions (2.2 and earlier) was changed. What was the reason for the reversal? I thought the old ruling was spot on.
We just got a lot of user feedback on that ruling, and since it is ambiguous enough to really be ruled either way (and its certainly not game-breaking to play it the way it is ruled now), we went ahead and switched it.
If anything, it probably makes a Chaos dread almost worth taking, which isn't a bad side-effect IMHO.
resinmann wrote:My question is about SW Bjorn the Fell-Handed. Is his Int of 3 a typo? Has there been errata addressing this OR is he just Lame. I know other SW players really like his ability to re-roll for sides of the table to deploy on. (LoL) Bjorn is from the time of Russ. Is Bjorn just Old and Tired. There is a lot of Fluff/Sagas to make your SM into SW's. Why doesn't Bjorn have a Wolf Claw?
There's only so many 'do the rules printed really mean what they say they mean?' questions in the FAQ, especially since we're not GW and we don't know for sure if any of these things are intentional or a typo. So yeah, in this case we just have to assume that Bjorn is old so his Initiative is 3 and he doesn't have a Wolf Claw because he's a Dreadnought.
athelu wrote:SW - JotWW Does Wargear modify your Initiative for this attribute test? The rules under attribute test in the Core Rulebook do not say. So - if you have a powerklaw, or a thunder hammer, and are targeted by JotWW do you test at your base profile initiative, or with your new initiative based on wargear?
First of all, the Sweeping Advance rules clearly state you use the unmodified Initiative value in the model's profile AND powerfists do not change the model's Initiative, they force them to STRIKE at a different Initiative value (a very different thing).
I think this rule is adequately covered in the base rules so we won't be including this in the FAQ.
I asked because there is a local player who made a really big fuss about being able to move his trukks 12" and fire burnas out of them.
His first argument was that burnas are "defensive weapons." When it was pointed out that passengers don't use the rules for vehicle's weapons (which took a whole lot of "convincing") he later came back with the argument that trukks don't use the rules for fire points, which, as far as I can tell, are the only rules which govern units firing out of vehicles, aside from that section of the open-topped vehicles rule.
Of course, that would also mean that he could actually fire out of the vehicle even if he moved flat out, but he didn't try to take it that far.
In my mind, the language "do not have specific fire points" implies that the vehicle still has fire points, just not ones that are defined as "this hatch" or "this firing slit".
*SM Drop Pods inertial guidance keeps the pods more than 1" away from enemy models? What if Pod drops directly onto enemy models, does Inertial Guidance help against this? *Thunderhammers vs. Gargantuan Creatures & Super-Heavies (put in main INAT, in the Thunderhammer section). *DE Haemonculi being able to take two of the same arcane wargear item. *Do DE Hexrifle wounds allow FNP to be used? *When are JotWW casualties resolved and can other 'wounds' be dumped on these models? *Does JotWW affect Jump Infantry? *Tyranid Tyrant Guard + Tyrant = 1 KP or 2? can this unit be set up in Dawn of War and if so, does it count as one unit or two? *Combat Squads outflanking one roll or two? *Lash Whip GW ruling have any influence on abilities that 'replace' characteristics (like Necron 'Soulless' vs. Stubborn, for example). *DE Fearless from Power from Pain with some models in the unit that don't have PfP. *Stompa Supa-Gatla vs. subsequent units that are out of range and/or LOS. Also, does the Flyer range reduction affect the within 12" rule for the Supa-Gatla? *Poisoned Biomporph for Tyanids...does this stack with other special weapons?
Here are a couple of questions about things in the Appendix:
1) The Lord of Change, Aetaos'rau'keres, has a list of Daemonic Gifts that's as long as his arm. Among them is "Master of Sorcery", which is specifically different than the Master of Sorcery in Codex: Chaos Daemons, in that it allows him to use two extra gifts/turn.
Given that he is a Gargantuan Creature, and already allowed to fire every weapon at his disposal, what does this actually do? In Codex: Chaos Daemons, Master of Sorcery specifies that you're not allowed to use the same gift twice. So, he's explicitly given permission to use two extra gifts each turn, but can't re-use any of them, and his normal allotment is "fire all". What's up with that?
2) Is there a reason that the Sonic Dreadnought listed in IA:Apoc2 as an option for an Emperor's Children army is not in the list of allowed IA/Apoc units? Surely allowing a Chaos Dreadnought to carry a Doom Siren instead of a Heavy Flamer isn't that game breaking.
3) Zarakynel, sexy avatar of mine, has Warptime listed as one of her psychic powers. She's also a Gargantuan Creature. Does she draw any benefit from her own power in this case, or does her protection from psychic powers also apply to her own power? (RAW vs RAI)
Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:Does the INATFAQ plan on covering expansions such as Apocalypse or Planetstrike and if not, is there a similar source that does?
Well, we covered the Apocalypse *unit* rules in the INAT appendix, but there are no plans to try to FAQ the rest of the Apocalypse rules (formations, stratagems, etc), Planetstrike or Cities of Death.
There are a few reasons for this:
1) Apocalypse and Planetstrike rules tend not to be used in tournaments as they aren't the most finely balanced of rules, and the INAT is a tournament FAQ.
2) Apocalypse in particular allows you to take any combination of units from any codex together in your army. The sheer amount of crazy combination that can be created this way makes the idea of trying to FAQ all these potential issues seem ludicrous.
3) Both Apocalypse and Planetstrike are designed as more of a 'friendly' game experience in that players need to be willing to get together more and decide on what types of rules they want to allow and disallow. Because of this, there is much less need to have some sort of unofficial FAQ running around giving guidelines on how to play. In other words, you're not going to tend to play Planetstrike and Apocalypse games against a stranger in a more 'serious' point of view where you argue about rules (as there is too much to argue about). Instead, since you already have to come to a consensus on how you're going to choose to play these games with your opponent, it makes sense that you can also hammer out rules issues that crop up in the game itself without the need of an unofficial FAQ.
4) While Cities of Death could definitely be used in a tournament style game more than the other two probably could, the fact is, with the release of 5th editions building rules, there are already the tools in place within the basic framework of the rulebook to allow games to be played in heavy urban terrain without the additional Cityfight rules.
So while it might be nice to have a FAQ for these supplements, it is already a time consuming enough task just dealing with the codices and the IA/Apoc units...I don't think I have it in me to try to cover all the expansions as well...and since I don't know of any tournaments that use them, I'm not really sure what the point would be!
Of course, if you know of a tournament that does use these expansions, let me know.
If it works on Veil of Tears, why does it not work on psychic powers like Guide?
It seems like it was ruled that it only stops powers that effect the model/unit with the Null Rod, but the fact that GW has said that it also works on psychic powers like Veil of Tears it seems like the scope of it’s anti-psychic powers is greater than that.
Jon can clarify more if necessary, but the principle behind the Null Rod and Veil of Tears is that Veil of Tears directly affects the unit/model by not allowing it to do an action. Fortune affects the squad making the saving throws, which is not the unit with the Null Rod. Therefore, since it does not have a direct effect on the unit with the null rod, the Null Rod can not be used to negate this power.
Skimmers, jetbikes, jump infantry etc may land on top of impassible terrain if they may placed there. What occurs if they land on a building that is unoccupied, but then later becomes occupied by enemy forces? Can they embark in the building since there would be an enemy within 1"? Can you land on a building that is occupied if they are not on the top?
The rules pertaining to these types of units and occupiable buildings have a lot of loop holes.
Can a Psychic Ability/Spell be used by a model that has not arrived on the board at the beginning of the turn as long as it does not effect a model that is on the board?
(Example: Farseer casting fortune on its unit(or itself) before it drops incase the transport were to die on the turn (or subsequent enemy turn) it arrives?)
First off... what exactally constitutes as AA mounted (other then weapons that specifically state AA-Mount, for instance, Nose/Wing/Hull mounted weapons on a flyer, Hunter killer missiles, Apocalypitic Barrages) [Clarification]
Does AA mounted weaponry still have its ranged reduced by 12 inches when firing at a flyer? [Clarification]
Are flyers still only able to be "Glanced" or do they simply count as "Obscured" now as per their specific wording comparing them to skimmers moving flat out. [Rule change]
Can the Daemon Lord of Tzeentch actually reflect abilities that do not normally affect it (such as Mind War?) [Clarification]
UAA2.62.01 States the other Daemon Lords(Not Tzeentch obviously) require 1+ units of Daemons from their patron. Under the specific entry of Zarakynel, you state that it MUST contain a unit of Daemonettes, was this an error, or an intentional wording (for instance, one would assume they could simply take a Herald of Slaanesh, Keeper of Secrets, Unit of Seekers etc instead of being required to take the Daemonettes)? [Clarification/rules change]
Daemonic Assault/Drop Pod Assault/Deathwing assault (Etc) + careful planning:
Do units that gain the benefit of "X Assault" count towards the "up to one half" that come out first turn from Careful planning? Are they a treated as a seperate reserve pool (meaning, if you had 8 drop pods, 4 come out from DPA, 2 from CP, and the last two would come out turn 2)? Can models that are NOT chosen from "X Assault" still come in during turn 1 (especially when using Daemonic assault) with careful planning? [Clusterfrak]
Can the Daemon Lords that cast psychic spells suffer Perils of the Warp? Or is this considered a psychic power without a strength value? [Clarification]
The Tzeentch Daemon lord has the "Improved Daemonic Gift" Master of Sorcery (+2 gifts instead of +1) but he is also a Gargantuan Creature, which specifically states that he may fire all of his ranged weapons... which takes precidence? Also, does the Daemonic Flight (moving more then 12 inches for instance) and/or Gaze of terror (aka the Melee IK LD test) count as one of these gifts?
I have another one regarding GCs, but I will wait for these ones first.
Are flyers still only able to be "Glanced" or do they simply count as "Obscured" now as per their specific wording comparing them to skimmers moving flat out. [Rule change]
Can the Daemon Lord of Tzeentch actually reflect abilities that do not normally affect it (such as Mind War?) [Clarification]
UAA2.62.01 States the other Daemon Lords(Not Tzeentch obviously) require 1+ units of Daemons from their patron. Under the specific entry of Zarakynel, you state that it MUST contain a unit of Daemonettes, was this an error, or an intentional wording (for instance, one would assume they could simply take a Herald of Slaanesh, Keeper of Secrets, Unit of Seekers etc instead of being required to take the Daemonettes)? [Clarification/rules change]
Can the Daemon Lords that cast psychic spells suffer Perils of the Warp? Or is this considered a psychic power without a strength value? [Clarification]
These questions will be removed as they are easily answered by more reading, I apologise for not appropriately researching my questions before asking...
However, some new ones have risen.
Dark Jealousy If a Daemon Prince/Greater Daemon is inside of a superheavy transport and within 18" of the Daemon lord of Tzeentch, does the Dark Jealousy rule take effect.
Does it also take effect if he is in range of a DP/GD in a superheavy flyer transport?
Does dark Jealousy require Line of Sight to take effect?
Gargantuan Creatures Do Tyranid Special rules (while not being techinically psychic powers) effect GCs ("It's out to get me" etc.)
Super heavy flying transports. Do models embarked in super-heavy flying transports have their own range for abilities and psychic powers reduced by 12 inches (Such as Fateweavers 6" reroll, Doom, and Gift of Chaos)?
And then the easiest...
Hold at all costs
Does this asset allow ANY non-vehicle unit to count as scoring (as per rules as written)? ((The hard part would be the conflict of this potential ruling with Death Company's special rule))
Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:Much like Drunkspleen's response, I also have a question regaurding Dark Eldar rules (as it was in the old FAQ thread, I am a bit surprised it was removed in INAT and from this thread.)
According to the 5th edition Dark Eldar FAQ
Talos are considered Monsterous Creatures, NOT skimmers, and such follow the rules for Monsterous Creatures for True LOS, Attacking Vehicles (other then their +1 for each extra attack rule) etc. This is where my question lies, as they refused to address what I feel is the REAL issue with Talos' wording.
The only real reason one would assume a Talos gets the rules for a Skimmer as far as LOS, Requiring 6s to hit, etc is because that in the codex it specifically lists the Talos as a Skimmer for MOVEMENT purposes only. (i.e no difficult terrain, can fly over Impassible but requires Dangerous Terrain if leaveing, entering or starting on Difficult, Dangerous, or Impassible.) Now I know this has caused confusion as to weither or not Talos can move 12 inches, but that aside, my question is;
Does the 5th Edition FAQs statement that a Talos uses the Rules for a Monsterous Creature invalidate the Codex Entry stating that a Talos MOVES as a Skimmer?
I believe we've had this ruled on for several iterations of the INAT, under DE.12C.01. While we don't explicitly say that the model doesn't move 12" it is explained that it moves as a Monstrous Creature (which is 6") and then just gets the bonus for its 'Skimmer' special rule allowing it to ignore terrain while it moves.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gorkamorka wrote:As I've seen it brought up half a dozen times here, and had discussions about it with two ork players in my LGS...
Ork unit costs and sizes, specifically for stormboy and kommando characters.
The relevant kommando upgrades read:
One Kommando may be upgraded to Nob.... +X points
...
Instead of a Nob, one mob may be led by:
- Boss Snikrot ..... X points (notably lacking a '+', or specific mention of upgrading)
The stormboy entry similarly reads:
One Stormboy may be upgraded to Nob.... +X points
...
Instead of a Nob, one mob may be led by:
- Boss Zagstruk ..... X points
Similar language from the codex that may be useful:
Flash Gitz:
One Flash Gitz mob may be led by:
- Kaptin Badrukk....... +X points
Nobz:
One nob may be a painboy... +X points
Do the characters require the purchase of a kommando/stormboy or nob to upgrade from? Or are they a base cost purchase that is simply added to the squad for the listed cost?
I've also seen the unit size questioned. Do they count as the base units in relation to the units composition size (ex 5-20 stormboyz = 4+Zag or 5+Zag minimum)?
I believe all these questions have been covered in the INAT for a few iterations. Here are the relevant question numbers:
ORK.99C.01
ORK.101A.01
ORK.103A.01
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:I hate to be TFG who asks the smallest of questions that may be obvious involving the appendix for an expansion for w40k.... *phew*
BUT... What are the unit types associated with the Thousand Sons' Warcoven (Interms of Force Org)
We won't be ruling on this, or any other apocalypse formation because formations are not used in basic games of 40K. The INAT appendix only covers the units that can be used in standard games of 40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:
However, one thing that does require a question, if one considers the FAQ as RAW (which I think for the purposes of INAT, one would) does that mean that the Necrotic Missile is no longer 2+ to wound? The Errata stated the profile changes to 24" Str1 AP2 Heavy Large Blast. Nothing about "Poisoned: (2+)" or anything of the like((No asterix)).
Just curious if INAT was gonna be superstrict on this one.
I don't think this question warrants inclusion in the INAT because the 'poison' part of the weapon is located in the codex entry before the profile listed. So even though the profile has been altered by the GW errata, the rules text that makes it poisoned has not been changed.
Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:Much like Drunkspleen's response, I also have a question regaurding Dark Eldar rules (as it was in the old FAQ thread, I am a bit surprised it was removed in INAT and from this thread.)
According to the 5th edition Dark Eldar FAQ
Talos are considered Monsterous Creatures, NOT skimmers, and such follow the rules for Monsterous Creatures for True LOS, Attacking Vehicles (other then their +1 for each extra attack rule) etc. This is where my question lies, as they refused to address what I feel is the REAL issue with Talos' wording.
The only real reason one would assume a Talos gets the rules for a Skimmer as far as LOS, Requiring 6s to hit, etc is because that in the codex it specifically lists the Talos as a Skimmer for MOVEMENT purposes only. (i.e no difficult terrain, can fly over Impassible but requires Dangerous Terrain if leaveing, entering or starting on Difficult, Dangerous, or Impassible.) Now I know this has caused confusion as to weither or not Talos can move 12 inches, but that aside, my question is;
Does the 5th Edition FAQs statement that a Talos uses the Rules for a Monsterous Creature invalidate the Codex Entry stating that a Talos MOVES as a Skimmer?
I believe we've had this ruled on for several iterations of the INAT, under DE.12C.01. While we don't explicitly say that the model doesn't move 12" it is explained that it moves as a Monstrous Creature (which is 6") and then just gets the bonus for its 'Skimmer' special rule allowing it to ignore terrain while it moves.
So then the answer would be "No"
The reason for the question was as follows:
If "Yes" I roll 3d6 and take the highest when moving through difficult terrain(As a MC), and take dangerous terrain as normal.
If "No" (which it seems you have ruled) then I can move freely (up to 6 inches of course) into Difficult/dangerous(/Impassible?) and must take a dangerous terrain test when moving from, moving through, and/or ending my move in difficult/dangerous(/Impassible?) terrain.
Can an Immobilised Walker rotate to fire its weapons (Like a Defiler for example)? As the RAW state that walkers rotate to face their shooting targets, and this rotate does NOT count as moving... And the Immoblised rule states that vehicles may not rotate in the movement phase. (The walker rotate occurs in the SHOOTING phase). Thanks for the clarification.
Actually, the immobilized rules simply says the vehicle may not turn in place, with no mention made of this restriction applying to a certain phase. As such, I think it is pretty clear that an immobile waker cannot turn in place.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:Might be a stupid question, but noticed there was nothing on it here... While the spawn itself is worth a kill point (for Boon of Mutation and Gift of chaos) is the model itself that is victim to this ability worth a killpoint? On that same light, do JOTW and Crucible of Malidiction reward killpoints (as neither actually "kill" the model but remove them from play)
Boon of Mutation and Gift of Chaos both specify that the model is removed as a casualty. Crucible of Malediction does say 'remove from play' but then later specifies that the psyker is "killed".
Jaws of the World Wolf is the only one that could perhaps be ambiguous, so I'll add that into the next version of the INAT.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:
RAW would not allow a player to take Multiple Death Company squads with Astorath the Grim as his special rule reads exactally as follows:
________
Redeemer of the Lost In an army that includes
Astorath the Grim, the
0-1 Death Company limit
is removed.
________
The Death Company do not have a 0-1 limit, instead the exact wording is
DEATH COMPANY.......................................................60 Page 44
You can include onle one unit of Death Company in your army.
_________
Would it be safe to assume that it is to be errata or RAI to say that Astorath's special rule allows for "Up to 6" squads of Death Company?
I just don't see any real possibility of confusion here. A '0-1' limit is another way of saying that you can include only a single instance of that unit in the army. Unless there is some other valid interpretation that people could legitimately be confusing it with, this really doesn't need to be included in the FAQ.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:
So then the answer would be "No"
The reason for the question was as follows:
If "Yes" I roll 3d6 and take the highest when moving through difficult terrain(As a MC), and take dangerous terrain as normal.
If "No" (which it seems you have ruled) then I can move freely (up to 6 inches of course) into Difficult/dangerous(/Impassible?) and must take a dangerous terrain test when moving from, moving through, and/or ending my move in difficult/dangerous(/Impassible?) terrain.
Yes, our answer is that the Talos follows the rules for Monstrous Creature movement (6") as well as its own 'skimmer' special rule. That means it may move 6", ignoring difficult terrain as it does so, but if it ends its movement in terrain then it will suffer a wound on a D6 roll of 1.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gwar! wrote:So, another InatFAQ, another (IMO) disappointment.
For the record, allowing SoS to affect vehicles is not a "Clarification", it is a blatant rules change, as has been proven in about 8 or 9 threads since the BA codex came out.
As is allowing a Techmarine to repair a vehicle he is inside.
Can we have just a little consistency? If you are going to change those rules and hide it, why not allow DC Tycho to be an IC?
In any case, My views on the INATs policy of hiding Rules Changes in Clarifications is well known, so I'll leave it at that.
Gwar,
You continually seem to be confusing what are labels of [RAW], [clarification] and [rules change] actually mean in relation to the document. They are well defined in the afterword of the INATFAQ, and all of our rulings are completely consistent within this guideline.
For example, you believe that Shield of Sanguinius by the 'RAW' doesn't give vehicles a cover save. I vehemently disagree. I believe that the RAW clearly dictate that Shield of Sanguinius does give vehicles a cover save.
So if you're writing your own FAQ (as you do), then you'd be correct to label your ruling as [RAW] if you believe that the rules dictate only that one clear answer. And likewise, if I was writing my own personal FAQ I'd put the opposite answer and label it as [RAW] if I believe the rules only dictate the one clear opposite answer.
However, in a FAQ where we have multiple people ruling on stuff, if anyone has the opinion one way and anyone else has the opinion the other way, then the ruling is a [clarification] because it represents that different players are going to have differing opinions about what the 'RAW' say in this particular instance.
So we are not 'hiding' rules changes behind the label of 'clarification', a 'clarification' is exactly what we say it is in the document.
And as for the Techmarine ruling, we (as do every tournament organizer and judge I've ever encountered), consider GWFAQs to be binding documents towards making tournament rulings. I know GWFAQs are 'house rules', but they are house rules that we are openly choosing to use. So as such, if GW makes a ruling on a subject, we try to always remain consistent with that ruling and apply it to other areas of the game that are related.
Since they ruled that way regarding Space Wolves Rune Priests, there isn't any reason that we're going to countermand the way they're ruling and create a needless inconsistency between Space Wolves and the rest of the Techmarines in the game.
And yes, this ruling is (properly) labeled as a 'clarification' because it is based on a FAQ precedent by GW, not by the 'RAW'. However it is *not* a rules change because the rules don't clearly specify whether or not models embarked on a vehicle count as being in 'base contact' with it, so there is absolutely enough wiggle room to make the ruling.
Finally, why would we change the rules for Death Company Tycho? There are other 'characters' in the codex that don't have the IC special rule and are effectively units of one, so why would we assume that DC Tycho isn't exactly the same? If you look at all the bonuses the model gets for choosing to be the 'Death Company' version (all for no additional points), I think it is pretty clear that the 'penalty' for taking this route is that you can no longer hide him in a unit.
Gwar! wrote:
Except the difference here is that I do not base my answers on what I "believe" the RaW is, I base them off what the RaW actually is.
If you read the RaW, you will see that SoS only grants a cover save to vehicles that can be used against wounds and that a vehicle can only take a cover save if it is obscured.
Therefore, allowing SoS to give vehicles a cover save IS a rules change, no matter how you try and spin it.
Frankly I don't know how to respond to that. So your interpretation of the rules is always 100% correct and anyone else who has an interpretation different than you is flat wrong?
I'm sorry, but I completely and utterly believe that the rules as written allow Shield of Sanguinius and Storm Caller to grant cover saves to vehicles, so I guess I'm just 'spinning' it and completely wrong as only your opinion can possibly be correct.
Perhaps you should lower the number of people then, since it seems none of you can come to a unanimous agreement on most of the issues presented.
That is the whole point! People have different interpretations of language and those differences manifest themselves in confusion when encountering others who have a different viewpoint. Labeling something 'RAW' or 'clarification' doesn't change the ruling, it simply let's you know that there is more than one possible interpretation of the rule out there and we've gone with one that you may not agree with, but other players out there already believe is correct.
What would removing council members from the FAQ accomplish? The goal is to make a FAQ for tournaments, not to simply stick to some supposed 'RAW' high-ground even if that means we're forcing the majority of players to play the opposite of how they naturally play.
The label of how the ruling is made is ultimately pointless. It is just a really brief descriptor to help people know why the ruling was made the way it was, because we don't really want to balloon the size of the document up to a crazy level by adding more detailed descriptions of the rulings on every single question.
Again, the RaW is very clear. By your logic, I can now assault a vehicle and attack the models embarked inside.
The fact of the matter is the GWFAQ answer is a rules change, not a clarification.
And in all fairness, it would gain the INAT a lot of Respect if it actually took a stand and became a self contained FAQ, using only the Errata from GW.
That precedent is not logically sound. Saying that an embarked model is in base contact with the vehicle they are embarked on is not necessarily the same thing as saying a model on the table that is physically in base contact with a vehicle also counts as being in base contact with all models embarked on the vehicle. That is a complete leap of logic that is not supported.
And what 'respect' would we gain by ignoring the GWFAQs? Every single tournament I've ever played in or heard about uses the GWFAQs. So besides yourself, who else would we be gaining the respect of by ignoring FAQs that everyone else follows?
Just like it's clear that SoS doesn't affect Vehicles, Techmarines cannot repair vehicles they are Inside, and that if you forget to declare your Wolf Claws they don't suddenly become normal power weapons. Again, a little consistency. If you are going to change the rules where it's clear what the RaW is, why not do it here? Why not allow Bjorn a Drop Pod?
All I am saying is that consistency is key.
Because some people (like myself) believe the rules for Shield of Sanguinius clearly allow for it to grant vehicles cover saves. Techmarines can repair vehicles they're embarked on because GW has ruled that an embarked model meets the requirements to do so in their FAQs.
And how would you suggest players play Wolf Claws if they don't declare which roll they're going to make? All we're essentially saying with that ruling is that if you forget to declare you don't get to utilize the re-roll that phase. Is there some clear way to play that situation I'm missing?
So to answer your final question, in none of those examples are we changing clear rules as written, because none of those situations are perfectly clear. The RAW for these situations may seem clear to you as a single person, but when applied to a larger societal group, you find that not every person has the same interpretation of the written word as yourself.
But with Death Company Tycho, we have 10 intelligent people on the council who all agreed that there is nothing in the rules to indicate that he is an Independent Character, so why would we change it?
Can you choose NOT to create a spawn with gift of chaos, even if you have a suitable model (effectively using the spell as removal) ?
Can a Thousand Sons Aspiring Sorcerer cast Gift of Chaos and/or Warptime twice per turn (as they are Psykers with the Mark of Tzeentch)?
Does Warptime allow you to Reroll to wound with secondary effects? (Such as Vehicle Explodes results on Passengers/Nearby victims)
Typhus: Herald of Nurgle: The final sentance states that "Typhus always successfully passes his Psychic tests when using these two powers (and so is also immune form the effects of Perils of the Warp)" yet Manreaper states "any model wounded but not killed by the Manreaper can be killed by Typhus with a succesful Psychic test, following all the rules for a normal force weapon." Force weapons allow for Perils of the warp, does this mean Typhus is immune to potential Perils of the Warp cause by Force Weapons, is he also safe from abilities that would normally automatically cause perils of the warp?
Gift of Chaos: Do the Spawn models created from this spell all count as seperate an individual units, or are they subject to the "Chaos Spawn" special descriptor (stating they must be divided into as few squads as possible)? ((I think this ones kinda easy TBH))
Ok..Here is the scenario. A unit of Fearless troops are tank shocked and the tank ends its movement on the far side of the unit with its rear portion over 2 models.
The way the rules read is any models that are under the tank have to move and the models have to move so that it is 1 inch away by the shortest route maintaining coherency. The exact wording is
"If some models would end up underneath the vehicle when it reaches its FINAL position these models must be moved out of the way by the shortest distance leaving them at least 1" between them and the vehicle maintaining coherency" (pg68)
So I moved the 2 units under the vehicle out from under the vehicle back up its path since it was the closest way to get it out and maintain coherency. My opponent said I had to move all the models along the path to clear the full route of the tank but I disagree
the rules also state
"If the test is passed (morale) the unit will simply let the unit move through as if it was not there" Which I take to mean that I don't move models along the route and only have to if it stops on the unit.(pg 68)
He said at Stone river, during a game, they made him move his unit to clear the path of the vehicle but that isn't the way I read the rules since it says " the unit will simply let the unit move through as if it was not there". Thoughts...
John Boy wrote:He said at Stone river, during a game, they made him move his unit to clear the path of the vehicle but that isn't the way I read the rules since it says " the unit will simply let the unit move through as if it was not there". Thoughts...
According to what he said, they were trying to play by 4th edition tank shock rules. In 4th edition, units had to move out of the path. In marked contrast, in 5th edition, units simply let the vehicle move through as if they weren't there. My suggestion would be that next time, you should open up the rulebook to the two pages for Tank Shock and point out where the rule says that you don't move out of the path.
Tyranids:
This concerns the Mycetic spore (Codex specifies it is a Dedicated Transport) and whether it can be dropped empty, and include a Tyranid Prime or not.
I'd like to draw your attention to page 94 of BRB, under the reserves header, third paragraph down under preparing reserves :
"First he must specify to the opponent if any of his independent characters left in reserve are joining a unit, in which case they will be rolled for and will arrive together,"
and it gets better....
"Remember that a dedicated transport can only be deployed, and consequently can only be kept in reserve, either EMPTY or transporting the unit it was selected with (plus any independent characters)"
So I would say not only can a Prime join most units with the option of a Mycetic Spore DEDICATED TRANSPORT, but you can also drop your pods empty. Thats the rules on page 94, and they seem pretty clear that none have ever done anything wrong by deploying this way.
GWFAQ says otherwise and seems to contradict their own rules. Will you consider going against their FAQ?
does RB.42P.01 apply to characters choosing to fight with two special weapons also? the ruling *technically* mentions choosing a special weapon and a regular one but does that extend to choosing 2 special weapons out of a selection of 3 or more? specifically, i'm asking this in reference to YMDC favorite, Marneus Calgar, with his dual powerfists and power weapon. since his question frequently comes up, can you add on a pertinent blurb about the ruling (whichever side it falls on) to his section under the marine FAQ?
also, does Lysander's bolter drill special rule apply to weapons that have a different profile to the standard bolter/stormbolter/boltpistol/heavybolter but are referred to in their flavor text as such? for instance, marneus calgar's Guantlets of Ultramar and pedro cantor's Dorn's Arrow are both referred to in their description as bolters and stormbolter respectively but have a profile that is unrecognizable as such...
warboss wrote:does RB.42P.01 apply to characters choosing to fight with two special weapons also? the ruling *technically* mentions choosing a special weapon and a regular one but does that extend to choosing 2 special weapons out of a selection of 3 or more? specifically, i'm asking this in reference to YMDC favorite, Marneus Calgar, with his dual powerfists and power weapon. since his question frequently comes up, can you add on a pertinent blurb about the ruling (whichever side it falls on) to his section under the marine FAQ?
And Eldrad and the Eversor and all the others with 2 special weapons plus additional weapons.
Yak, new issue for you and the INAT council (I didn't see this in the current INAT nor in the GWFAQ, so). . .
Does Fortune cast on a unit go with the separate units when they detach? I'll give the points-of-view that I've gathered and the problems that arise:
You have Eldrad + Asurmen + Dire Avengers. Fortune is cast on the unit (since an attached IC and the unit is considered 1 unit in all instances except for assault resolution) at the beginning of the turn. Asurmen and the Avengers break off. Does Eldrad still have Fortune?
1.) Yes - the power is granting an effect. This effect of the power is what is important, not the power itself. The effect is the priviledge to re-roll failed armor saves. This power is cast at the beginning of the turn, when all of the models in play are the same unit. This power is cast on "the unit" and every model in "the unit" therefore has the ability to re-roll failed saves. When the unit is broken up, the ability is still active on all parties. The reason for this is because it was cast upon them at the beginning of the turn, when the unit was 1. It conferred the ability to re-roll saves and that ability is still active, until the following turn. The power has done its duty at the beginning of the turn, but the effect remains.
Forseen problems: None. When the power is cast, the unit is 1 unit. Every model in the unit has the ability to re-roll saves. The ability goes with each unit, not the spell, because the ability is the by-product of the spell being cast at the beginning of the turn on everyone in the "friendly unit". You don't cast Fortune on Eldrad and the Avengers just so happen to get it at the same time. You cast it on one unit. That unit is the Avenger + Asurmen + Eldrad unit. It is not 3 units, but 1.
2.) No - "the unit" is one of the three units and it only stays with that particular unit if they are detached. The power grants an effect on "the unit", but once a character leaves "the unit", it is no longer in effect on them. It is not like an effect that the unit had casted on it, rather more like a Remains In Play spell that is activating when the unit is called upon to take failed armor saves.
Forseen problems: I have Asurmen + Eldrad + the Dire Avengers. They split into 3 different units. Who takes Fortune? And why? What if the player wanted Fortune on Eldrad and not the Avengers when they split? Or Asurmen? Where does Fortune go and why? It doesn't tell you to choose a unit when they detach. It simply says that the unit may re-roll failed saves for the remainder of the turn. When all three are together, they are 1 unit, for all intents and purposes. When they split, they are no longer 1 unit, but 3. This is looked at as a Remain-In-Play spell, but there are no such thing in 40K. The spell is cast and the effect of the spell is carried out. The effect is what remains. If it was something like a Remains-in-Play spell (the spell itself always affecting the targeted "unit"), then it should be able to be nullified at any time, which it cannot be.
Thanks for your time.
Edit: On the same account, if it is ruled that Fortune is lost when a character leaves a unit, it means that Paroxysm for Nids should work the same way as well. If a unit is hit with Paroxysm and the character leaves a unit, it would fall off, just like Fortune in the opposite example. Or any other psychic power that affects "a unit".
What prompted the change in the Astropath rule? I remember the old FAQ that it wouldn't work because it did not specifically say that it worked in reserves, unlike the Eldar Autarch.
I see the Stormbolter was moved to the 2 handed Weapons. Does this mean the "true grit" rule dos not apply. Is the NFW the only weapon used in assault combat. No 2nd weapon bonus.
If Eldrad casts 3 spells in 1 turn (using his staff) does he still have a power weapon in melee that wounds on a 2+, also, does this ability refresh per GAME TURN or PLAYER TURN.
Eldrad Ulthuan's staff allows him to use any psychic power a second time in a turn (Codex: Eldar pg. 51). However, psykers may not use more than one shooting attack in a turn unless they can fire two ranged weapons in a turn (BRBpg. 50). Can Eldrad Mind War and/or Eldritch storm a second time in the same turn?
I see that on your FAQ, you say the Manticore, when firing indirectly, counts as multiple barrage. Since you say that, would I be correct in assuming that firing directly, you would fire it as D3 large blasts (no multiple barrage). Also, as you are not firing it barrage, the enemy would not be pinned, correct?
I was looking at the team tournament, and saw the possibility of forgeworld and/or apoc units. I didn't see the Necron Tomb Stalker in the list of allowed, is it going to be added? (Hopefully soon, there's a local tournament using the adepticon format we'd like to play in, see how it works.)
dancingcricket wrote:I was looking at the team tournament, and saw the possibility of forgeworld and/or apoc units. I didn't see the Necron Tomb Stalker in the list of allowed, is it going to be added? (Hopefully soon, there's a local tournament using the adepticon format we'd like to play in, see how it works.)
Adepticon only allows units in published Imperial Armor books. Rules that are still experimental (web only) are not allowed. So unless the Tomb Stalker rules appear in IA10 (which I'm pretty sure they don't) then you're out of luck for using it at Adepticon...unless you wanted to use the model to 'count as' a C'tan, for example.
dancingcricket wrote:Next question that came up, for the team tournament, is phase out per player, or per coalition? Not sure if it's covered by brothers in arms.
Questions for a specific tournament (as opposed to general 40K questions) need to go to that particular tournament organizer. So if you're playing in a team event somewhere, you need to send this question to that tournament organizer to get your answer!
Major Possession and Null Field Generator interact?
My interpretation is that the Independent Character models in the area of effect would not be eligible to be possessed.
I could not find Strategic Assets in the FAQ at all.
Here's a repost of my answer to a similar question from earlier in the thread:
yakface wrote:
Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:Does the INATFAQ plan on covering expansions such as Apocalypse or Planetstrike and if not, is there a similar source that does?
Well, we covered the Apocalypse *unit* rules in the INAT appendix, but there are no plans to try to FAQ the rest of the Apocalypse rules (formations, stratagems, etc), Planetstrike or Cities of Death.
There are a few reasons for this:
1) Apocalypse and Planetstrike rules tend not to be used in tournaments as they aren't the most finely balanced of rules, and the INAT is a tournament FAQ.
2) Apocalypse in particular allows you to take any combination of units from any codex together in your army. The sheer amount of crazy combination that can be created this way makes the idea of trying to FAQ all these potential issues seem ludicrous.
3) Both Apocalypse and Planetstrike are designed as more of a 'friendly' game experience in that players need to be willing to get together more and decide on what types of rules they want to allow and disallow. Because of this, there is much less need to have some sort of unofficial FAQ running around giving guidelines on how to play. In other words, you're not going to tend to play Planetstrike and Apocalypse games against a stranger in a more 'serious' point of view where you argue about rules (as there is too much to argue about). Instead, since you already have to come to a consensus on how you're going to choose to play these games with your opponent, it makes sense that you can also hammer out rules issues that crop up in the game itself without the need of an unofficial FAQ.
4) While Cities of Death could definitely be used in a tournament style game more than the other two probably could, the fact is, with the release of 5th editions building rules, there are already the tools in place within the basic framework of the rulebook to allow games to be played in heavy urban terrain without the additional Cityfight rules.
So while it might be nice to have a FAQ for these supplements, it is already a time consuming enough task just dealing with the codices and the IA/Apoc units...I don't think I have it in me to try to cover all the expansions as well...and since I don't know of any tournaments that use them, I'm not really sure what the point would be!
Of course, if you know of a tournament that does use these expansions, let me know.
Simply put, can models embarked in an open-topped transport vehicle fire if the vehicle moved at cruising speed? Does 'fast' make a difference there? On the same token, if a unit is embarked in a transport and deep-strikes, can the embarked unit fire even though the deep-striking unit moved at 'cruising speed'?
Excalus wrote:Simply put, can models embarked in an open-topped transport vehicle fire if the vehicle moved at cruising speed? Does 'fast' make a difference there? On the same token, if a unit is embarked in a transport and deep-strikes, can the embarked unit fire even though the deep-striking unit moved at 'cruising speed'?
Those are all pretty clearly covered in the rules (no to all), so I'm curious as to why you believe this needs to be included in the INATFAQ?
Can a Chaos Spawn model (or squig for that matter!) be generated by a succussful casting (and 'failed' characteristic test roll) of Gift of Chaos or Boon of Mutation, even though the effects of the spell (being removed from play) are "ignored"?
Can you take Vect +9 Harlequins in The Dias of Destruction at the beginning of the game?
How does a Shadowseer's ability (Veil of Tears) work when in a transport?
1. Do Tyrant guard a. count as a kill point along with the Hive Tyrant or by themselves and b. when deploying in Dawn of War deployment do the Tyrant Guard count as a "second" HQ when deployed with the Hive Tyrant or may I deploy the unit and two troops?
2. I've seen this in the INATFAQ but I just want to know why it is the way it is. Shadow in the Warp does not affect Psykers in transports, so why do psykers in transports get to cast powers and nullify the enemy's while inside a transport. Heck, Runes of Warding still works even if the Farseer is still in reserve. I would just like some clarification.
3. Is Doom's soul sucking ability allowed cover saves only for balance sake or is it left over from the "targeting inside transports" debacle?
Excalus wrote:Simply put, can models embarked in an open-topped transport vehicle fire if the vehicle moved at cruising speed? Does 'fast' make a difference there? On the same token, if a unit is embarked in a transport and deep-strikes, can the embarked unit fire even though the deep-striking unit moved at 'cruising speed'?
Those are all pretty clearly covered in the rules (no to all), so I'm curious as to why you believe this needs to be included in the INATFAQ?
I'm just looking to definitively close the argument before it begins, since there is the special case of the new DE with open-topped fast skimmers. The first argument is that the rule that embarked models cannot fire if the vehicle is moving at cruising speed is under the 'fire points' rule. The argument goes that the open-topped rule says that there are no fire points, ergo that rule doesn't apply. I've also heard an argument for fast vehicles that since "fast vehicles that move at cruising speed may fire a single weapon (plus all defensive weapons just like other types of vehicle moving at combat speed)" (pg70) for the purposes of shooting out, the passengers count as combat speed as well. Since the vehicle shooting counts as combat speed, then the passengers shooting count that as combat speed too. The third one is that under the FAQ, models that deep strike embarked in a transport count as having deep-struck themselves. As such, they should be able to shoot (while still embarked) after a deep strike. This is in direct opposition to the generally understood 'can't shoot out if vehicle moved at cruising speed' rule since Deep-striking vehicles count as having moved at cruising speed. However, since both units count as deep-striking, the deep strike rule overrules the embarked shooting rule.
Just think that it would be best to absolutely clarify these things ahead of time. Thanks for the patience
◊BT.23A.02 – Q: Do Templar Infantry units that
have „[gone] to ground‟ still take Morale Checks if
they suffer 25% casualties in the shooting phase?
A: Yes (they just don‟t automatically take the check when
suffering any casualties), and if passed they make a
consolidation move per the „Rigtheous Zeal‟ rules. Note that
making this consolidation move does indeed remove their
„[gone] to ground‟ status [clarification].
Ref: CD.75B.02, CSM.88E.02, RB.24A.04
How does GtG remove the requirement for them to test if they take one or more casualties?
don_mondo wrote:◊BT.23A.02 – Q: Do Templar Infantry units that
have „[gone] to ground‟ still take Morale Checks if
they suffer 25% casualties in the shooting phase?
A: Yes (they just don‟t automatically take the check when
suffering any casualties), and if passed they make a
consolidation move per the „Rigtheous Zeal‟ rules. Note that
making this consolidation move does indeed remove their
„[gone] to ground‟ status [clarification].
Ref: CD.75B.02, CSM.88E.02, RB.24A.04
How does GtG remove the requirement for them to test if they take one or more casualties?
Check out the errata section of GW's Black Templar FAQ. It changes 'pinning' to 'gone to ground' for that rule. So BT units that have gone to ground no longer take morale checks when they suffer a single casualty.
yakface wrote:How does GtG remove the requirement for them to test if they take one or more casualties?
Check out the errata section of GW's Black Templar FAQ. It changes 'pinning' to 'gone to ground' for that rule. So BT units that have gone to ground no longer take morale checks when they suffer a single casualty.
I apologize in advance if this has been asked already… I looked but couldn’t find a ruling or FAQ.
Per the BRB, Rage forces a unit to move towards the closest enemy. The key here is that it does not specifically say “all models in the unit” but rather just says unit.
This could be interpreted to mean that the closest model to an enemy must move full out towards that enemy, but the rest of the unit just has to maintain coherency with that first model that moved. Technically, yes, the entire unit is closer to the nearest enemy because that first model moved towards it, but having the majority of the unit move however you want it to seems like a tactical loophole.
The alternative is to have every model of the unit try to move as fast and as far as possible towards the nearest enemy. This would lead to the unit bunching up during the movement phase as they try to climb over each other to get to the closest target.
Is the idea of the following ruling specific to BA?
BA.GEN.03 – Q: Do Mephiston, The Sangiunor and Death Company Tycho count as „characters‟ for rules and mission objectives that refer to „characters‟? A: As strange as it may seem, these models are not „characters‟ as defined in the rules, but rather just HQ units comprised of a single model [RAW].
If not how does that reconcile with page 85 of the Tyranid codex, Legendary Creatures? If I make my Swarmlord part of a unique Hive Fleet it is a special character, but not if I do not? Editing in a bit I missed: The Tyranid FAQ specifically names the Unique models as Special Characters as well in the first question of the third page.
Also, how does that relate to the rules for Unique characters in the main rulebook, page 49? There are many Unique characters choices that are apparently not characters so these rules would not apply?
Editing to add: To put this another way, that issue is not covered for all Unique 'characters'. Nor does the answer cover all the problems (although to be fair, I am not sure any do, really).
The Official Tau Empire FAQ have been updated,many of the Q&As are included.It also bring some changes like gun drones are not counted as passengers now.
My Questions:
Would Tempest's Wrath affects Jump Infantry that choose to move as Infantry?
Can Jet Pack units choose to move like Infantry units?Can they get the 6'' extra move in the assault phase then?
Do Gun Drones counted for regrouping purposes?
In light of the new ruling on grenades in the GKFAQ:
Games Workshop wrote:Q: Does the entire unit need to be equipped with rad,
psyk-out and/or psychotroke grenades for their effects
to work or is just one model being equiped with them
enough? (p60)
A: One model in a unit is enough.
If one model in a unit (IC) has defensive grenades, does the whole unit benefit? Ongoing conversation here.
Red Paint Job on Ork vehicle. If an Ork vehicle with the red paint job upgrade goes 7 inches do enemy troops hit the vehicle on 4+ or a 6+ in CC? the rules as written could go either way and when I asked most people play a 6+. When I played it this way at a tournament an opponant got all bent out of shape about it and I would like a diffinitive answer as I dont care one way or the other (just not sure how to play it).
Just a brief bump of the thread to make it clear that v5.0 of the INAT has now been released. Please click on the INATFAQ link at the top of the page to always find the most current version of the INATFAQ.
Grimgob wrote:Red Paint Job on Ork vehicle. If an Ork vehicle with the red paint job upgrade goes 7 inches do enemy troops hit the vehicle on 4+ or a 6+ in CC? the rules as written could go either way and when I asked most people play a 6+. When I played it this way at a tournament an opponant got all bent out of shape about it and I would like a diffinitive answer as I dont care one way or the other (just not sure how to play it).
Grimgob,
Sorry I wasn't able to get this question into this latest release as we were already pretty late in the game of getting it done by the time you posted this, but I'll be sure to get it in the next update.
I'd like to see an INAT ruling on the issue from this thread, as the thread basically started repeating itself and the question seriously affects list composition.
invisiblade wrote:BTW, in the Grey Knights section, for the Stormraven, the special deep strike disembark is supposed to be "Shadow Skies", but it's a direct CP from BA with 'Skies of Blood'. Just being nit picky, but thought you ought to know.
MasterSlowPoke wrote: BA.38D.05 and GK.37C.05 have contradicting answers.
Thanks so much! Someone else already pointed out the contradictory rulings on those two...that was a simple error on my part. The 'correct' ruling is the one in the Blood Angels section. We will be putting out a tiny update (v5.0.1) within the next week that will correct that issue and fix the 'Shadow Skies' wording as well.
Anytime you can spot errors like that it is a huge help when you let me know ASAP.
So the v5.0.1 version of the INATFAQ has now been posted.
The v5.0.1 update is a house cleaning update that fixed a few small typos and rulings I incorrectly did not change before publishing the document. Specifically: GK.37C.05 (incorrect ruling), GK.37G.01 (typo), GK.37G.02 (typo) & GK.54F.01/GK.54J.01 (incorrect ruling).
You can find it (as always) from the INATFAQ homepage by clicking on the INATFAQ link at the top of the page or visiting inatfaq.com.
Hello Dakka, I'm back from the dead. Anyway, love the INATFAQ, because it clarifies sooo much and is at least some standard of objectivity that a group can vote on accepting when it comes to dicey rules.
To this particular version of the FAQ, I, as always, am asking too much for my precious Necrons.
First off, there are two contradictory rulings in the FAQ for Necrons, NEC.17A.01 and NEC.17A.02. To clarify, in the first ruling the leadership value given by Soulless is "not a leadership modifier" but the second cites the Book of St. Lucius as an example of an ability that gives an "unmodified Ld" value to nearby units. If Soulless isn't a leadership modifier, then the Book of St. Lucius would still grant only Ld 7 according to the other ruling's terminology. Either that or stubborn units as well as the Book should ignore the Soulless rule.
Second (actually several related questions, and these situations have come up repeatedly in games) if a squad of Necrons is further than 6" from another Necron unit of the same type, but still within 12" of a Tomb Spyder, its members can roll WBB and are added to another unit on the battlefield of the same type.
A) If there are multiple units that are eligible to receive the survivors of the squad in question, can the Necron player choose which unit they are attached to?
B) If there are multiple units that are eligible to receive the survivors of the squad in question, can the Necron player choose to have some of the members join one of the eligible units and some join another?
C) Are the models that failed a WBB roll in this kind of situation eligible for re-roll if their new unit is sent through a monolith portal?
Third, Necron units often can get new members, sometimes even to the point where the squad has more members than it started with. In some cases a unit can lose several of its members, but a lucky roll can return them all to the fight. In such a situation, if the unit is not involved in a combat, are they placed in coherency simultaneously or one by one? For example, if 20 downed Necron Warriors are coming back to a unit that has only one Necron Warrior left standing, are they simultaneously placed within 2" of that one model, or are they placed one by one, each in coherency with a member that has successfully resurrected? Keep in mind that 20 Warriors do not fit in coherency with a single Warrior (so what happens to the ones that don't fit in coherency if the resurrection is simultaneous?) and that a unit can stretch across a significant distance if it receives enough new models if those models are placed one by one (2" + a warrior base + 2" + a warrior base, etc. etc.)
Fourth, a Tomb Spyder that makes a Scarab Swarm suffers a wound if it rolls a one for its Artificer rule. Can the Spyder take its 3+ save against the wound, as is the case for a "Gets Hot!" roll from a plasma weapon?
Fifth, a Tomb Spyder makes Scarab Swarms at the beginning of the Assault Phase. When a swarm is created, is there a specific location it has to be placed (does it have to be in base-to-base contact or can it be within 2" coherency)? The issue here is that a swarm can be placed within 2" coherency via RAW, effectively extending the assault range of a Tomb Spyder unit by more than 3.5"
Sixth, Phase Out is calculated "at the beginning of the Necron turn" "after all We'll Be Back! rolls have been taken." The reason I separated the two quotes is that they are (seemingly) contradictory. Monoliths can cause a re-roll of WBB, so at the beginning of the turn it is quite possible that all of the WBB rolls have not been taken yet. I think most people understand how this likely works, but it needs clarification. Is Phase Out calculated after the first, "normal," set of WBB rolls are taken, or ASAP after all rolls, including the Monolith re-rolls, are taken?
Thanks Yakface, and keep up the beautiful, excellent, and thank-you-so-much-for-fixing-this-stuff work.
Inconsistencies between dreadnoughts in destroyed BA and GK stormravens, one is destroyed and one is not.
Other rules seem to do with BA vs GK combat squads on arriving from reserve.
When using the Neural Shredder, how do you determine the LD value that you use to wound? Is it the highest value in the unit, the majority value, or some other method?
Pyriel- wrote:Inconsistencies between dreadnoughts in destroyed BA and GK stormravens, one is destroyed and one is not.
Other rules seem to do with BA vs GK combat squads on arriving from reserve.
The inconsistency between the two Dreadnought/Stormraven rulings was fixed in v5.0.1, but has since been superceeded by GW's new official FAQ rulings (which will therefore be removed from the next INAT update).
What precisely is the BA vs. GK combat squad inconsistency you've spotted?
Kitzz wrote:The same inconsistency for Soulless is also in the Witch Hunters FAQ (it modifies but doesn't modify, see rules WH30B.02 and WH30B.03).
That is actually intended. 'Modifiers' are actually something semi-defined in the rules as something that adds or subtracts to the characteristic. A power that replaces or changes a model or unit's Ld is still modifying the model/unit's Ld, but this is not a 'modifier'.
In other words, a modifier is definitely modifying Ld, but not everything that modifies Ld is a 'modifier' as defined in the rules.
Therefore, since the Book of St Lucius always allows units to use its bearer's 'unmodified' Ld this is the strongest possible worded rule, whereas something that simply ignore Ld modifiers would still be affected by a power that replaces or totally changes the model/unit's Ld value.
At least that was the majority vote that we decided on the matter!
Kitzz wrote:
First off, there are two contradictory rulings in the FAQ for Necrons, NEC.17A.01 and NEC.17A.02. To clarify, in the first ruling the leadership value given by Soulless is "not a leadership modifier" but the second cites the Book of St. Lucius as an example of an ability that gives an "unmodified Ld" value to nearby units. If Soulless isn't a leadership modifier, then the Book of St. Lucius would still grant only Ld 7 according to the other ruling's terminology. Either that or stubborn units as well as the Book should ignore the Soulless rule.
As I discussed above, this distinction was actually intentional. All Ld 'modifier's modify Ld, but not everything that modifies Ld is a 'modifier' and hence the difference in our opinion.
Second (actually several related questions, and these situations have come up repeatedly in games) if a squad of Necrons is further than 6" from another Necron unit of the same type, but still within 12" of a Tomb Spyder, its members can roll WBB and are added to another unit on the battlefield of the same type.
A) If there are multiple units that are eligible to receive the survivors of the squad in question, can the Necron player choose which unit they are attached to?
B) If there are multiple units that are eligible to receive the survivors of the squad in question, can the Necron player choose to have some of the members join one of the eligible units and some join another?
C) Are the models that failed a WBB roll in this kind of situation eligible for re-roll if their new unit is sent through a monolith portal?
2A & 2B) I don't see any reasoning that would deny the Necron player to choose which among any valid units to join any new member to or am I missing something obvious? If its just a matter of it would be nice to have the question included, its probably (sadly) going to fall into the category of being left out just because its an older codex and it has to be a really legitimately confusing situation to be added to the INAT at this point (as opposed to just reinforcing the existing rules).
2C) This question confuses me a bit I have to admit! We clarified our position regarding the Monolith portal and re-rolling WBB rolls in the INAT. To reiterate, a downed model is still considered part of its original unit (for the purposes of Monolith re-rolls) unless it stands back up and joins a different unit. So if a downed model fails its WBB roll then the only way it can get a Monolith re-roll is if its existing unit then teleports through the Portal...so as to your question, there's no way they can be part of a 'new' unit unless they passed their WBB roll, in which case they obviously don't get to benefit from the Monolith's re-roll (as they're already repaired).
Third, Necron units often can get new members, sometimes even to the point where the squad has more members than it started with. In some cases a unit can lose several of its members, but a lucky roll can return them all to the fight. In such a situation, if the unit is not involved in a combat, are they placed in coherency simultaneously or one by one? For example, if 20 downed Necron Warriors are coming back to a unit that has only one Necron Warrior left standing, are they simultaneously placed within 2" of that one model, or are they placed one by one, each in coherency with a member that has successfully resurrected? Keep in mind that 20 Warriors do not fit in coherency with a single Warrior (so what happens to the ones that don't fit in coherency if the resurrection is simultaneous?) and that a unit can stretch across a significant distance if it receives enough new models if those models are placed one by one (2" + a warrior base + 2" + a warrior base, etc. etc.)
This probably should get added to the INAT. I think by the RAW (as I read them), you are technically taking your WBB rolls one model at a time (even if people do group them together by unit and roll them all at once) so therefore you'd place your newly arisen models into unit coherency one at a time and should technically be able to totally spread out your coherency as you see fit. However, I do think that's iffy enough that we should probably vote on it to see what several people think and put it in the INAT...so look for that in a future update at some point.
Fourth, a Tomb Spyder that makes a Scarab Swarm suffers a wound if it rolls a one for its Artificer rule. Can the Spyder take its 3+ save against the wound, as is the case for a "Gets Hot!" roll from a plasma weapon?
That's another good question given how much GW waffles back and forth about these things when they aren't specifically stated. I think you'd definitely get an armor save as written, but I could see why people would think you can't (hence why its a good candidate).
Fifth, a Tomb Spyder makes Scarab Swarms at the beginning of the Assault Phase. When a swarm is created, is there a specific location it has to be placed (does it have to be in base-to-base contact or can it be within 2" coherency)? The issue here is that a swarm can be placed within 2" coherency via RAW, effectively extending the assault range of a Tomb Spyder unit by more than 3.5"
Looking at the rules, it says it has to be placed in contact with the Spyder, and yes I see no reason why this can't allow the Spyder 'unit' to essentially gain a slight increase in its assault range by placing a Scarab base in this way...so I'm not really thinking this is anything that the INAT would need to cover.
Sixth, Phase Out is calculated "at the beginning of the Necron turn" "after all We'll Be Back! rolls have been taken." The reason I separated the two quotes is that they are (seemingly) contradictory. Monoliths can cause a re-roll of WBB, so at the beginning of the turn it is quite possible that all of the WBB rolls have not been taken yet. I think most people understand how this likely works, but it needs clarification. Is Phase Out calculated after the first, "normal," set of WBB rolls are taken, or ASAP after all rolls, including the Monolith re-rolls, are taken?
I see exactly what you're saying (and you're right) but its specific enough that I can't imagine anyone coming up with any viable argument that a tournament judge would ever rule another way on. WBB rolls are taken 'at the start of every Necron turn', so its pretty clear that phase out is calculated at the start of the turn after these WBB rolls are taken. Technically the rule probably should have been written that phase out is calculated 'after WBB rolls are completed at the start of each Necron turn', but like I said, I can't imagine a legitimate counter-argument that would ever sway a tournament judge and therefore its not really a good candidate for the INAT.
Thanks Yakface, and keep up the beautiful, excellent, and thank-you-so-much-for-fixing-this-stuff work.
You are very welcome, glad the document is of use to you and thank you so much for your feedback!
Kitzz wrote:
A) If there are multiple units that are eligible to receive the survivors of the squad in question, can the Necron player choose which unit they are attached to?
B) If there are multiple units that are eligible to receive the survivors of the squad in question, can the Necron player choose to have some of the members join one of the eligible units and some join another?
2A & 2B) I don't see any reasoning that would deny the Necron player to choose which among any valid units to join any new member to or am I missing something obvious?
Actually, checking into this a bit more closely I realized I made a mistake when I said this. The WBB rules clearly say that a Necron which repairs is then placed into coherency with the closest unit of the same type. Even when a Tomb Spyder is in play, there is nothing to indicate this same rule isn't in effect. So you'd still have to join each repaired Necron model into the closest unit of the same type, its just that with the Tomb Spyder in play this could be a unit of the same type anywhere on the table.
Kitzz wrote:
Second (actually several related questions, and these situations have come up repeatedly in games) if a squad of Necrons is further than 6" from another Necron unit of the same type, but still within 12" of a Tomb Spyder, its members can roll WBB and are added to another unit on the battlefield of the same type.
A) If there are multiple units that are eligible to receive the survivors of the squad in question, can the Necron player choose which unit they are attached to?
B) If there are multiple units that are eligible to receive the survivors of the squad in question, can the Necron player choose to have some of the members join one of the eligible units and some join another?
There is only going to be one "closest" unit. If unit A is 12" away and unit B is 12.0001 inches away, you must join unit A.
Forgive me if this is not the right area. But I was looking over the ork FAQ's from here and games workshop and I noticed one inconsistency:
ORK.98A.01 – Q: Can a Painboy in a Nobz mob take a
bosspole, Waaagh! banner, Ammo runt or ‘eavy
armour?
A: Yes, as the Nob can take any of these upgrades before
being made into a Painboy (he just can’t upgrade his
weapons as those have to be replaced when he becomes a
Painboy) [clarification].
from 40k's faq's Ork codex 1.1 5jul2011
Q: Can a Painboy in a unit of Nobs take the ‘eavy
armour, bosspole, Waaagh! Banner or ammo runt
upgrades? (p98)
A: No.
sirlynchmob wrote:Forgive me if this is not the right area. But I was looking over the ork FAQ's from here and games workshop and I noticed one inconsistency:
ORK.98A.01 – Q: Can a Painboy in a Nobz mob take a
bosspole, Waaagh! banner, Ammo runt or ‘eavy
armour?
A: Yes, as the Nob can take any of these upgrades before
being made into a Painboy (he just can’t upgrade his
weapons as those have to be replaced when he becomes a
Painboy) [clarification].
from 40k's faq's Ork codex 1.1 5jul2011
Q: Can a Painboy in a unit of Nobs take the ‘eavy
armour, bosspole, Waaagh! Banner or ammo runt
upgrades? (p98)
A: No.
I certainly always appreciate heads-up about inconsistencies between the INAT and GW's FAQs, but everytime GW releases a new FAQ that pulls questions from the INAT there are invariably going to be some questions they rule differently on. We always then put out a new version of the INAT a bit after that which removes any inconsistencies (which I'm currently working on now).
So, really the only inconsistencies I need a heads-up on are those that are still in the INAT after we've done at least one update since the last GWFAQ release. So if I put out a NEW version of the INAT now and that Ork inconsistency was accidentally left in the INAT then I would definitely love for people to point that out (so I can take it out).
But yes, for that inconsistency (and a few more) that were introduced with the last round of GWFAQ updates, I am on it!
A) The Deceive power of the Deceiver can only be used during the shooting phase. His Dread power can only be used during the Necron assault phase. Does this mean that he can use Deceive during the enemy shooting phase?
B) Can the Deceiver use Deceive in a shooting phase in which he runs?
Etheric Tempest!
A) If my opponent's unit is on the board edge and The Nightbringer is facing it directly, will it be destroyed similar to other units that fall back and find the table edge? B) If my opponent is situated according to the X in the following picture, with The Nightbringer being 0 and impassible terrain/enemy/friendly models being |, is the unit Trapped! and thus destroyed? Assume that both spaces left and right of The Nightbringer are not large enough for the unit to move through without being within 1" of an enemy.
C) Same question as C, with a twist. Assume that both spaces left and right of The Nightbringer are large enough for the unit to move through without being within 1" of an enemy.
D) Do questions A-C work on fearless units?
General question that pertains to the Monolith!
I have for the duration of 5th ed. played that as long as the center hole of the blast is over an enemy model, it is a legal target. This is incredibly important to the Monolith, which treats all models under the hole as ap1 rather than ap3. There have been many situations where more than one model, including even multiple vehicles, have been under the center hole, and I believe that both models suffer ap1 hits. Am I correct?
Non-general questions that pertain to the Monolith!
A) If a Monolith rams in the movement phase, can it fire its Particle Whip in the subsequent shooting phase?
B) The Monolith can teleport squads of Necrons as if they were disembarking. Unfortunately, it has only one access point, and larger squads (including Warrior squads with 17+ members) can't all fit within the given 2" for disembarking. RAW the extra models seem to be destroyed, even though there is no damage done to the monolith, unless they can use an "emergency disembarkation." If they can use an "emergency disembarkation," are they then prohibited from doing anything for the rest of the turn, as in the "emergency disembarkation" rule? Note that the starting squad size of a Necron Warrior squad can be as high as 20.
C) Which Monolith facing, if any, is “the front” for the purposes of tank shocking?
D) Ehh this is complicated, so I've attached a jpeg to this message for you to refer to. In the image, the square shape is the Monolith, from a bird's-eye view, hollowed out so you can see what is underneath it as it is Deep Striking. The black circles represent a squad of models (let's say IG) that the monolith is landing on. Assume that model A is equidistant from all four sides of the Monolith. Assume that model B is currently 2" away from the nearest model to it.
Di) Given the above, and as the Monolith's rules imply that you do the moving, can you decide which side A is moved to, or does your opponent? Will this apply to all models equidistant from two or more sides of a Deep Striking monolith? Is there an order in which you move models, or is it considered simultaneous? Note that if a large vehicle was southwest of B, B might have to be moved a significant distance.
Dii) Given the above, and as the Monolith's rules state that models in the way of its Deep Strike are moved the minimum distance necessary to make space for the monolith, will B thus be out of coherency with the rest of its squad? note the implications of question Di as it relates to this issue.
In the Chaos Daemons Codex, it says a squad with Karanak is taken as a normal Elites choice (page 55). Does this mean the squad, normally taken as Fast Attack now becomes an Elite choice or do you think it's a typo?
AvatarForm wrote:In the instance that the INAT disagrees with the FAQ, which should we go with?
Our TO rules INAT > FAQ.
The most recent example was:
"Does JotWW require a To Hit roll, as the affected models already must pass an Initiative test in order to save/avoid it?"
FAQ says yes, based upon the power being categorised as a PSA as it is used in the Shooting Phase of a player turn. However, INAT says "No"
There's kind of two different instances there.
1) In some cases, GW updates their FAQsafter we put out an INAT update and they often have rulings that contradict the INAT. In those cases (as stated on the first page of the INAT) the GWFAQs obviously take precedence.
2) In the second case, you have specific questions in the INAT that are actually generated in response to a GWFAQ answer, as is the case with the question you brought up. In these cases, the INAT is making a ruling based on an ambiguous situation that GW's FAQ has either created itself or does not properly cover. So if you're choosing to use the INAT then you'd be going with our interpretation of that situation instead of whatever interpretation you personally have.
In the case of Jaws of the World Wolf and rolling to hit, the situation is far from clear-cut in GW's FAQs and therefore our ruling is not a contradiction, but rather an interpretation. There are obviously situations where a psychic shooting attack does not need a roll to hit. A very obvious example would be a PSA that is a template weapon. So the question breaks down to: even given GW's ruling, when exactly is a PSA's language specific enough to preclude making a roll to hit?
Well, we argued about it for a long while, but eventually we decided that when a power actually has a different process for determining 'hits' then this is specific enough to mean that you do not roll to hit. The reason for this is because there is nothing explicit that tells us what could or should happen if we did roll 'to hit' for JotWW and 'missed'. The rules for JotWW say that you draw a line and any models under that line are those that are 'hit', so precisely when and where should you be rolling 'to hit' for JotWW and how did you come to that conclusion?
Sure you can say that you roll 'to hit' and that if you fail to 'to hit' then you don't get to draw the line at all for JotWW, but all that is made up conclusions with no actual basis in the rules because JotWW essentially breaks (or supersedes) much of the basic shooting rules.
We ultimately felt that the special rules for JotWW and Blood Lance effectively replace the normal 'to hit' process for shooting attacks (as they use a different method to determine hits, much like a template weapon), and therefore even with GW's FAQ ruling, those powers do not have to make a roll 'to hit', or even if they do, failing their 'to hit' roll has no impact on how the power works.
AvatarForm wrote:In the instance that the INAT disagrees with the FAQ, which should we go with?
Our TO rules INAT > FAQ.
The most recent example was:
"Does JotWW require a To Hit roll, as the affected models already must pass an Initiative test in order to save/avoid it?"
FAQ says yes, based upon the power being categorised as a PSA as it is used in the Shooting Phase of a player turn. However, INAT says "No"
There's kind of two different instances there.
1) In some cases, GW updates their FAQsafter we put out an INAT update and they often have rulings that contradict the INAT. In those cases (as stated on the first page of the INAT) the GWFAQs obviously take precedence.
2) In the second case, you have specific questions in the INAT that are actually generated in response to a GWFAQ answer, as is the case with the question you brought up. In these cases, the INAT is making a ruling based on an ambiguous situation that GW's FAQ has either created itself or does not properly cover. So if you're choosing to use the INAT then you'd be going with our interpretation of that situation instead of whatever interpretation you personally have.
In the case of Jaws of the World Wolf and rolling to hit, the situation is far from clear-cut in GW's FAQs and therefore our ruling is not a contradiction, but rather an interpretation. There are obviously situations where a psychic shooting attack does not need a roll to hit. A very obvious example would be a PSA that is a template weapon. So the question breaks down to: even given GW's ruling, when exactly is a PSA's language specific enough to preclude making a roll to hit?
Well, we argued about it for a long while, but eventually we decided that when a power actually has a different process for determining 'hits' then this is specific enough to mean that you do not roll to hit. The reason for this is because there is nothing explicit that tells us what could or should happen if we did roll 'to hit' for JotWW and 'missed'. The rules for JotWW say that you draw a line and any models under that line are those that are 'hit', so precisely when and where should you be rolling 'to hit' for JotWW and how did you come to that conclusion?
Sure you can say that you roll 'to hit' and that if you fail to 'to hit' then you don't get to draw the line at all for JotWW, but all that is made up conclusions with no actual basis in the rules because JotWW essentially breaks (or supersedes) much of the basic shooting rules.
We ultimately felt that the special rules for JotWW and Blood Lance effectively replace the normal 'to hit' process for shooting attacks (as they use a different method to determine hits, much like a template weapon), and therefore even with GW's FAQ ruling, those powers do not have to make a roll 'to hit', or even if they do, failing their 'to hit' roll has no impact on how the power works.
While I understand and agree with your rationale, this is the rationale I took to the arguement, the latest GQ FAQ says that JotWW needs to roll To Hit as it is a PSA...
Not sure if this is the correct thread but under the Feel No Pain universal special rule there is a typo that invalidates part of the rule that has bugged me.
“Neither can it be used against wounds from AP1 and AP2 weapons”
It isn’t possible for the same ranged weapon to have two different AP values as the conjunction “and” ties both statements together logically.
It should read:
“Neither can it be used against wounds from AP1 or AP2, weapons”
Since I don't see GW lifting a finger anytime soon on the issue, what, if any, would the time-frame be for adding the SoBWD codex to the INATFAQ to address some of the various "typos" and other issues present in said codex?
Evil Lamp 6 wrote:Since I don't see GW lifting a finger anytime soon on the issue, what, if any, would the time-frame be for adding the SoBWD codex to the INATFAQ to address some of the various "typos" and other issues present in said codex?
Typically our goal is to do a FAQ for something new about 1 1/2 months after something is released. In the case of the new SOB codex, that would be 1 1/2 months after part 2 is released. The reason we wait this long is to allow most of the issues to be found instead of jumping the gun and putting something out that is very incomplete.
And actually, GW has been doing a great job of timely FAQ updates, so I don't think you can count out a SOB FAQ from them.
I feel DE.63I.01 is not quite clear on where the Shock Prow grants extra D3 armour.
As per the Shock Prow entry on page 63 of the Dark Eldar codex, it only grants extra armour when ramming enemy vehicles.
Maybe this is implied in your use of
when calculating ram hits
but it could be made more clear by using the wording of the entry itself, or redirecting to the codex entry.
Hey for
◊GK.54A.01 – Q: Do all of the wounds caused by an
Independent Character with an ‘active’ Nemesis
Force Weapon inflict ‘Instant Death’ (or is only a
single wounded enemy model affected as with
standard Force Weapons)?
A: Yes, once an IC ‘activates’ his Nemesis Force Weapon all
wounds inflicted by him for the phase inflict ‘Instant Death’
[clarification].
Can you clarify this for Dreadknights and Dreadnoughts as well? I know they both have Nemesis force weapons but the clarification above specifically refers to independent characters.
I've got a question about your rulings on page 4:
RB.09.01 – Q: Do actions that happen at the ‘start of the turn’ take place at the beginning of the movement phase or is there some sort of pre-movement phase?
A: There are only three phases in a turn, so unless specified otherwise, all actions that happen at the start of the game or player turn are indeed taking place at the very start of a player’s movement phase [RAW].
RB.09.02 – Q: How does a player resolve multiple actions that are supposed to be performed at the ‘start of the turn’?
A: All events or actions that occur at the start of the turn/movement phase must be performed before the player takes any voluntary actions. Beyond that restriction, all ‘start of the turn/movement phase’ actions may be performed in any order the player wishes, unless specified otherwise [clarification].
When I'm playing Eldar I cast my psychic powers at the beginning of my turn. I also deploy my reserve units at the beginning of my movement phase. By your answer to RB.09.01 deploying reserves (beginning of the movement phase) and casting my psychic powers (beginning of my turn) happen at the same time. Therefore, by your answer to RB.09.02, I can deploy a reserved Farseer (not voluntary), cast his psychic power (voluntary) and then move the rest of my units.
This is the opposit of how I've been playing it. I've been casting psychic powers (voluntary, used at the start of my turn) and then deploying reserves (start of movement phase) and then moving the rest of my units.
While this would normally be how they meant it, it is the opposite of the GWBRBFAQ ruling. Any other circumstances upon which two or more events occur at the same time, this would come into play.
Hellstorm - it helps if you quote the rule or at least what page it's on.
From Page 7 of the GW rulebook FAQ Q: If a unit is in reserve, and it has an ability occurs at the start of a turn can they use that the turn they arrive? (p94)
A: No. Unless specifically stated otherwise.
I've always played that the "start of the turn" happens before the start of the movement phase. INATFAQs above read that start of the turn = start of the movement phase. That gets my head spinning about the wording of Homing Beacons now...
Similarly - can my Farseer that's already on the board at the beginning of the game use a psychic power on one of my units that just came in from reserves?
ryan3740 wrote:Hellstorm - it helps if you quote the rule or at least what page it's on.
From Page 7 of the GW rulebook FAQ Q: If a unit is in reserve, and it has an ability occurs at the start of a turn can they use that the turn they arrive? (p94)
A: No. Unless specifically stated otherwise.
I've always played that the "start of the turn" happens before the start of the movement phase. INATFAQs above read that start of the turn = start of the movement phase. That gets my head spinning about the wording of Homing Beacons now...
Similarly - can my Farseer that's already on the board at the beginning of the game use a psychic power on one of my units that just came in from reserves?
Sorry, I put a link in with the GWFAQ and you can click on it but it doesn't show up as link very well. But yeah, that is the question I was talking about. As far as the Farseer, I don't think so because it appears that "At the start of the turn/movement phase..." comes before Reserves.
ryan3740 wrote:I've got a question about your rulings on page 4:
RB.09.01 – Q: Do actions that happen at the ‘start of the turn’ take place at the beginning of the movement phase or is there some sort of pre-movement phase?
A: There are only three phases in a turn, so unless specified otherwise, all actions that happen at the start of the game or player turn are indeed taking place at the very start of a player’s movement phase [RAW].
RB.09.02 – Q: How does a player resolve multiple actions that are supposed to be performed at the ‘start of the turn’?
A: All events or actions that occur at the start of the turn/movement phase must be performed before the player takes any voluntary actions. Beyond that restriction, all ‘start of the turn/movement phase’ actions may be performed in any order the player wishes, unless specified otherwise [clarification].
When I'm playing Eldar I cast my psychic powers at the beginning of my turn. I also deploy my reserve units at the beginning of my movement phase. By your answer to RB.09.01 deploying reserves (beginning of the movement phase) and casting my psychic powers (beginning of my turn) happen at the same time. Therefore, by your answer to RB.09.02, I can deploy a reserved Farseer (not voluntary), cast his psychic power (voluntary) and then move the rest of my units.
This is the opposit of how I've been playing it. I've been casting psychic powers (voluntary, used at the start of my turn) and then deploying reserves (start of movement phase) and then moving the rest of my units.
Is this how your gaming group plays?
The 'unless specified otherwise' in the key here.
GW's rulebook FAQ makes it clear that you cannot use 'start of turn' abilities with a model that is arriving from Reserves that same turn. So our ruling does not apply to that particular situation as GW's FAQ specifies otherwise.
But I'll probably add a little clarifier to our ruling to make it perfectly clear that people need to know about GW's ruling in regards to models arriving from reserve.
That still doesn't answer the question - can a Farseer cast a psychic power on a unit that arrived from deepstrike that turn?
Locator beacons and Teleport homers must be on the board at the "Start of the turn" in order to be used. According to your ruling that clause can be triggered after I move units on from reserve, which happens "at the beginning of my movement phase."
ryan3740 wrote:That still doesn't answer the question - can a Farseer cast a psychic power on a unit that arrived from deepstrike that turn?
Locator beacons and Teleport homers must be on the board at the "Start of the turn" in order to be used. According to your ruling that clause can be triggered after I move units on from reserve, which happens "at the beginning of my movement phase."
By our current ruling you are correct, you could move something on from Reserves and as long as the Farseer was not the one moving on from Reserves he would technically be allowed to cast a 'start of the turn' power on that arriving unit.
However, I can pretty safely say that is an oversight on my part. We had a specific ruling in place covering units arriving from Reserves not being able to use (or benefit from) 'start of the turn' abilities, but I removed it because I figured GW's own ruling covered our bases, but I see now that it actually only covers it in one instance and not the other, so when the next INAT update comes out it more than likely we will put a ruling back in place to prohibit a unit arriving from Reserve being able to benefit from a 'start of the turn' ability.
yakface wrote:We had a specific ruling in place covering units arriving from Reserves not being able to use (or benefit from) 'start of the turn' abilities, but I removed it because I figured GW's own ruling covered our bases, but I see now that it actually only covers it in one instance and not the other, so when the next INAT update comes out it more than likely we will put a ruling back in place to prohibit a unit arriving from Reserve being able to benefit from a 'start of the turn' ability.
Or you could just say that 'start of the turn' is before the movement phase. That's much simpler and then all of GW's FAQ answers and rules about teleport homers make sense. Plus, you won't need all these 'exceptions'.
Yep, just state that once a unit has moved, to include arriving from reserves, then the 'start/beginning of the turn' is over and done with. This answer is even supported by the GWCSMFAQ.
I'm assuming that you're going to wait a while to introduce all of the new Necron rulings into the FAQ, but just so you know, I have a little project going on, aiming to make that process a bit easier on you. This codex is a bit of a bear in the rules issues department from what I've seen so far. Hopefully I can help.
Just a brief bump of the thread to make it clear that v5.0 of the INAT has now been released. Please click on the INATFAQ link at the top of the page to always find the most current version of the INATFAQ.
Grimgob wrote:Red Paint Job on Ork vehicle. If an Ork vehicle with the red paint job upgrade goes 7 inches do enemy troops hit the vehicle on 4+ or a 6+ in CC? the rules as written could go either way and when I asked most people play a 6+. When I played it this way at a tournament an opponant got all bent out of shape about it and I would like a diffinitive answer as I dont care one way or the other (just not sure how to play it).
Grimgob,
Sorry I wasn't able to get this question into this latest release as we were already pretty late in the game of getting it done by the time you posted this, but I'll be sure to get it in the next update.
Thanks for all the great submissions everyone!
Sorry for bringing up an old thread, but has there been a ruling on this yet anywhere?
Does the Necron Abyssal Staff target the average leadership or the highest leadership in a unit? Its a normal shooting attack in everyway except that it doesn't wound against toughness, it wounds against LD, so would it would the average LD just like a normal shooting attack would?
Does the Grey Knight rule 'Reinforced Aegis' only apply to models that already have the 'Aegis' special rule?
A friend and I got into a discussion about the wording of the 'Reinforced Aegis' rule and agreed that it can be confusing. Depending on how one would read it, it could be argued that any psychic power used within the 12" bubble of the Dreadnought would suffer the leadership penalty, and not just targets of psychic powers that have the Aegis rule.
Arander wrote:Does the Grey Knight rule 'Reinforced Aegis' only apply to models that already have the 'Aegis' special rule?
A friend and I got into a discussion about the wording of the 'Reinforced Aegis' rule and agreed that it can be confusing. Depending on how one would read it, it could be argued that any psychic power used within the 12" bubble of the Dreadnought would suffer the leadership penalty, and not just targets of psychic powers that have the Aegis rule.
It does say that the 'Leadership penalties caused by the Aegis are increased to -4' so I don't see how anyone could come to the conclusion that this applies to units that don't have the Aegis.
Example, a cryptek stays a part of a cryptek unit, they are an HQ choice. If the cryptek squad splits and joins seperate units, that they can never leave and are considered "part of the unit", do they becomes troops? Such that, if they got back up after their unit was destoryed, would they still be consider scoring units?
"Page 96 – Infantry Platoon, second sentence
Change to “Each Infantry Platoon is deployed in place
of a single unit in missions that limit the number units
that can be deployed. In addition when making a
reserve or outflanking roll, roll once for the whole
Infantry Platoon. Any units in reserve that are
embarked upon a non-dedicated transport are instead
rolled for separately."
For Dawn of War deployment purposes, could an Infantry Platoon (Platoon Command Squad w/Chimera, Infantry Squad w/Chimera, Infantry Squad w/Chimera) be deployed as a single Troops choice?
It covers the Necron & Sisters of Battle (White Dwarf) Codexes and the recent GW official FAQ update (Feb 2012).
Thanks for your patience and sorry for taking so long to get this update out!
Oh, and the INAT Appendix update covering Imperial Armor Volume 11 and Imperial Armor Apocalypse 2nd edition, should hopefully be up within a couple of weeks.
Here's all the relevant questions I could think of that either didn't get put in or were a result of the update. Thanks for said update, by the way. Having a standardized FAQ for this stuff really helps.
Strictly Necron questions:
If a Wraith unit moves through terrain when assaulting, is its initiative reduced to 1 in the resulting assault if they are joined by an independent character?
Does a model that lost a save due to Entropic Strike lose the save in its profile (i.e., is it considered different from then on for the purposes of wound allocation)?
Can a model that suffered a "delayed" result on the Deep Strike mishap table be deployed by the monolith's portal in the same turn?
If a Night Scythe is immobilized while moving flat-out, are its occupants destroyed or placed in reserve?
If a unit in reserve fails a pinning test or a morale test, what happens?
Does a CCB have to move over a large oval flying base in order to hit the vehicle with sweep attacks? If it can only get so far as to reach a wing and ends its move "under" the model, does it still count as moving "over" the model for the purposes of the sweep attack?
If a CCB moves flat-out and suffers an 'Immobilized' result, can Symbiotic Repair still be used to prevent the damage to the vehicle, even though it would normally be destroyed? What if this result is suffered because of its own move into terrain?
Do Imotekh's lightning strikes affect units forced to disembark by lightning strikes in the same turn?
Can a unit in a Night Scythe utilizing Phased Reinforcements also disembark in the enemy turn?
If Wraiths are given Tank Hunters, do they still rend on only an "actual" roll of 6?
Can Phased Reinforcements be used if the enemy unit that "arrives" from reserves rolls a "Destoyed" or "Delayed" mishap result on the Deep Strike mishap table?
If MitM affects an enemy vehicle in a squadron of 2 vehicles, then fires the affected vehicle at the other vehicle, does the vehicle being fired upon revert to the normal rules for vehicle damage or does it retain the squadron rules for vehicle damage?
If a single enemy model is affected by multiple mindshackle scarabs, does it continue rolling Ld tests until it fails (once for each instance of mindshackle scarabs)? In addition, if it fails multiple leadership tests, can the Necron player roll several D3s and choose the highest of those rolls?
If a Deathmark unit contains a Cryptek with a Veil of Darkness, can it use the Ethereal Interception special rule if it is arriving from reserve? What about Phased Reinforcements?
If a Deathmark unit deploys multiple times over the course of a game (Night Scythe wreck, mishap while attached to a veil, etc) can it choose a new unit for its Hunters from Hyperspace special rule? If so, is its original choice (assuming that target is still alive) still targeted for the purpose of Hunters from Hyperspace?
If a unit is wounded by an Aeonstave, can it from then on be allocated to differently, as it has a different stat line?
Can pinned Lychguard units reflect shooting attacks?
Is the Staff of Tomorrow supposed to be a close combat weapon?
Is the Staff of the Destroyer also a Staff of Light in addition to its special one-shot shooting attack?
If a unit contains a Cryptek with a Nightmare Shroud, can the Shroud target a different unit than the one its attached unit is firing at? In addition, when is its target chosen (e.g., before, during, or after its own unit's shooting)?
If two Nightmare Shrouds are in the same unit, do they happen at the same time? For example, if an enemy unit flees from the first, does it roll to flee a second time from the second Nightmare Shroud, even if its first fall back move takes it out of the second Nightmare Shroud's range?
Can a unit containing two Chronometrons re-roll 2d6 rolls? Are there any special case D6 rolls a chronometron can't re-roll?
Dark Eldar/Necron Questions:
Assume that a unit is wiped out by Dark Eldar shooting from unit X. In the same shooting phase, Dark Eldar unit Y runs in order to prevent a Cryptek from making an ever-living roll by standing in the area where it would normally be able to return to play, resulting in its removal from play. Can either unit get the PFP counter?
Similarly, what happens in the assault phase if the Animus Vitae (in unit X) inflicts a wound that would normally allow it to activate? Does it still get to make the Ld test right away, or does it happen at the end of the phase? If it is used against a model with ever-living, and as in the above case unit Y prevents the EL roll from being made in the first place, does the Animus Vitae still get to activate?
Grey Knight/Necron questions:
Is a unit moving (i.e., not arriving from reserve) via a Veil of Darkness affected by Warp Quake?
If a C'tan kills a model with Time's Arrow and the killed model is attempting to use Cleansing Flame, what happens? What if that model is the last one in the combat capable of using cleansing flame?
How do mindshackle scarabs interact with Crowe's (or any other model's) use of The Perfect Warrior?
SoB/Necron Question:
How do Mindshackle Scarabs interact with Spirit of the Martyr?
Does a Tyranid Impaler Cannon ignore cover saves for smoke and flat out vehicle movement? I have seen so many places playing the rule differently I don't know what to do.
The new FAQ gives the impression it ignores them, until you come to the word 'wounds'.
INAT wrote:NEC.85G.02 – Q: If two Crypteks with Seismic Crucible are attached to the same unit, can one enemy unit be nominated for both, reducing their assault move by 2D3 inches?
A: Yes [clarification].
ELD.26D.01 – Q: Are multiple instances of Runes of Warding in the same Eldar army cumulative with each other (meaning opposing psykers take their psychic tests using 4D6)?
A: No, multiple instances of Runes of Warding in the same army still only add a single extra D6 to enemy psychic tests [clarification].
I'm curious why one set of wargear stacks, yet another does not. Any clarification would be appreciated.
jbunny wrote:Not sure if covered inthe FAQ or not.
If a model has an ability that is triggered by "Unsaved Wounds Caused" can this ability trigger more times than a unit has wounds.
EX: For each Unsaved wound caused do X. If 5 unsaved wounds are caused on a unit with only 3 wounds does X happen 3 or 5 times?
Notice the wording is wounds caused and not wounds suffered.
Which ability in particular are you referring to? I don't think there can necessarily be some catch-all ruling on this type of thing because the wording for each ability sometimes differs.
Happyjew wrote:I have a question regarding the latest INATFAQ.:
INAT wrote:NEC.85G.02 – Q: If two Crypteks with Seismic Crucible are attached to the same unit, can one enemy unit be nominated for both, reducing their assault move by 2D3 inches?
A: Yes [clarification].
ELD.26D.01 – Q: Are multiple instances of Runes of Warding in the same Eldar army cumulative with each other (meaning opposing psykers take their psychic tests using 4D6)?
A: No, multiple instances of Runes of Warding in the same army still only add a single extra D6 to enemy psychic tests [clarification].
I'm curious why one set of wargear stacks, yet another does not. Any clarification would be appreciated.
This point was definitely brought up during the discussion and there is no completely clear-cut answer.
In the case of the Seismic Crucible it seemed fairly straight forward: The ability is generated separately by each Cryptek and could be allocated onto two different units, affecting them both, so it makes sense that applying both Crucibles onto a single enemy unit would mean it suffers the effects of both.
The Runes of Warding is a bit more of a tricky situation. There are those that believe GW's errata was done specifically to allow the stacking of multiple Runes of Warding, but we felt it was pretty clear the change was made to iron out the issues you had when you had a Runes of Witnessing vs. a Runes of Warding in opposing armies.
While we could be 100% wrong, we don't think the intention was to make two sets of Runes of Warding in the same army essentially shut down any opposing army from using any psychic powers (as taking tests on a 4D6 would do). I know Eldar certainly could benefit from such a boost, but we're basically falling back on the absurdity clause here: It just seems highly unlikely that GW intends for this errata to suddenly increase the power of Runes of Witnessing to an incredible level...that's not what their errata are typically used for. They are used to clarify genuinely unclear situations, and the unclear situation that we believe the errata was made to address was when you had Runes of Witnessing vs. Runes of Warding in opposing armies.
Blood Talons says For each unsaved wound generate another attack. If he gets 5 unsaved wounds on 3 single wound models, how many additional attacks does he get that can be directed into another unit in base to base contact.
Not wanting to debate the ruling, just wanted your ruling on it.
Can the Sweep Attack special rule be clarified as it relates to movement "over" a model?
I'll try and give some examples:
1. Can any part of the CCB move over the enemy model? That is, does the base need to pass over the other model, or can it be any part of the hull?
2. Does pivoting count as moving "over" the enemy model? For example, I move my barge 24", but when I land facing the enemy table edge, I land within 1" of the enemy. If I instead land facing one of the short table edges and pivot 180 degrees to face the second table edge, I will remain 1" away from the enemy unit, but only by pivoting will I be capable of moving "over" the enemy unit.
At the Indy GT, the above was ruled on in my first game, but because it's fairly easy to do either of these moves first turn, most of my opponents were not prepared for the tactic. The Indy GT ruled for the first and against the second, but it came up in 5/6 of my games, and as necrons are on the rise, I feel it is becoming more and more relevant, especially since armies are starting almost exactly 24" apart more often than not.
Kitzz wrote:Can the Sweep Attack special rule be clarified as it relates to movement "over" a model?
I'll try and give some examples:
3. Can you double back, as part of moving "over" a model? E.g., you lack the movement to completely pass the model, or there isn't room to land on the far side - if you have enough movement to reach the edge of the enemy model, and then pull back to land safely, does that meet the requirements?
Does a Grey Knight unit equipped with a Brotherhood Banner still need to roll dice when using their Force Weapons to see if they suffer Perils of the Warp even though the unit would "automatically" pass it's Psychic test?
Blood Talons says For each unsaved wound generate another attack. If he gets 5 unsaved wounds on 3 single wound models, how many additional attacks does he get that can be directed into another unit in base to base contact.
Not wanting to debate the ruling, just wanted your ruling on it.
Only 3. You can only deal as many wounds to a model as are on its profile.
Zirilius wrote:Does a Grey Knight unit equipped with a Brotherhood Banner still need to roll dice when using their Force Weapons to see if they suffer Perils of the Warp even though the unit would "automatically" pass it's Psychic test?
No, that is why you take the banner. Since you automatically pass the test, there is no dice roll required.
*Poisoned Biomporph for Tyanids...does this stack with other special weapons?
wow yak... of all people i thought you would know that in the tyranid codex it states that tyranids do not use weapons and that all of the biomorphs effect the melee attacks of the tyranid. so if you have scything talons, adrenal glands, toxin sacs and lash whip bone sword. you get poison(+4), furious charge, re-roll all 1's to hit, enemies in base to base are I1, and may cause instant death.
I would like a page number or rules ref. The only thing others have been able to mention is Determine Assault Results, but I feel that does not apply here. I also refer to the wording of Unsaved wounds caused, and not unsaved wounds suffered.
Regarding Farseer powers; Farseer powers do not require line of sight, unless otherwise noted. Of the listed powers, only Mind War specifies needing LoS. Does Eldritch Storm (as it is a PSA) require LoS?
If a unit of Grey Knights is assaulted by a unit or model equipped with Psyk-out grenades, is the entire GK unit reduced to I1 or is the Justicar/KotF/Random designated by the Brotherhood of Psykers rule the only model reduced to I1?
Reasons for asking:
- The Brotherhood of Psykers (BoP) special rule states that the entire unit is treated as a single psyker seeming to support that the entire unit would be reduced to I1.
- The BoP rule also states that any "attacks" (and perils but not relevant in this case) that specifically target psykers are attributed to just to the Justicar/KotF/Random.
- The Crucible of Malediction (CoM) FAQ seems to support that only the Justicar/KotF/Random would be effected, as a precedent.
- This question seems to boil down to if a Psyk-out Grenade is considered an "attack" or not. For example, the CoM FAQ may seem to apply at first, but the CoM is more of an "attack" being that it actually removes models whereas a Grenade seems to be more of a "special rule" in that it does not cause wounds, cannot remove models, etc. What is the definition of an "attack"?
- Arguments have been made that the term "attacks" in the BoP rule should be interpreted loosely to mean anything which causes a negative effect.
- Likewise, if the author intended for "attacks" to be read loosely, would it not have been more fitting then to just say "anything which targets psykers" rather than specifying attacks and perils?
- This question has come up at least 2 times already in this forum with no definitive conclusion and proponents on both sides. In my experience, this also varies from group to group.
Wanted a clarification here on an INAT ruling. I realize this is a very contentious subject (by the 28 page discussion on it) and that the INAT has already pretty much resolved this, but I'm still genuinely unclear on how this will be ruled. Hoping for a little resolution on it.
INAT says:
◊NEC.29B.04 – Q: If a Necron model with ‘EverLiving’ is part of a unit that is wiped out by a
sweeping advance or is killed failing to stop a vehicle
with a ‘Death or Glory! attack’, can it still return to
play via its ‘Reanimation Protocols’?
A: No in both cases [clarification].
It's obvious that if a Cryptek or IC with the EL rule in this case is with a unit that that is swept, they don't get their EL roll.
My question is:
Do they get their EL roll if they were killed prior to the sweeping advance?
The reason I am asking:
- Is the model a "part of the unit" at that time or not?
- It's clear that a model that is swept or is part of a unit that is swept, he doesn't get the roll. Being knocked down prior to the sweep though, means that he died prior to the sweep and may or may not still be part of the unit at that time.
Unsure on how to proceed because I can't tell if this is meant to only apply to EL models which were swept or also to EL models which were killed prior to the sweep.
Here's an example:
A unit comprised of 5 warriors and 2 crypteks gets into an assault. Knowing that the unit will likely die and get swept, the Necron player allocated wounds to the Crypteks which gets them knocked down. EL tokens are placed. The remaining warriors then lose the combat and are swept. Since the 2 crypteks went down prior to the sweep, does this still apply?
For a twin-linked weapon, must you be able to draw LoS from both barrels in order to draw LoS? More specifically, can a Dreadnought with a Twin-Linked Autocannon/Lascannon draw LoS over top a Rhino?
Reason for asking:
- This is a very common debate.
- No rules that I have found either give you permission nor deny you from drawing LoS from either barrel or both.
NecronLord3 wrote:Please address Ever Living in regard to Sweeping Advance.
Specifically, in regards to models killed in close combat, whose unit is subsequently Swept.
ngilstrap wrote:Wanted a clarification here on an INAT ruling. I realize this is a very contentious subject (by the 28 page discussion on it) and that the INAT has already pretty much resolved this, but I'm still genuinely unclear on how this will be ruled. Hoping for a little resolution on it.
INAT says:
◊NEC.29B.04 – Q: If a Necron model with ‘EverLiving’ is part of a unit that is wiped out by a
sweeping advance or is killed failing to stop a vehicle
with a ‘Death or Glory! attack’, can it still return to
play via its ‘Reanimation Protocols’?
A: No in both cases [clarification].
It's obvious that if a Cryptek or IC with the EL rule in this case is with a unit that that is swept, they don't get their EL roll.
My question is:
Do they get their EL roll if they were killed prior to the sweeping advance?
The reason I am asking:
- Is the model a "part of the unit" at that time or not?
- It's clear that a model that is swept or is part of a unit that is swept, he doesn't get the roll. Being knocked down prior to the sweep though, means that he died prior to the sweep and may or may not still be part of the unit at that time.
Unsure on how to proceed because I can't tell if this is meant to only apply to EL models which were swept or also to EL models which were killed prior to the sweep.
Here's an example:
A unit comprised of 5 warriors and 2 crypteks gets into an assault. Knowing that the unit will likely die and get swept, the Necron player allocated wounds to the Crypteks which gets them knocked down. EL tokens are placed. The remaining warriors then lose the combat and are swept. Since the 2 crypteks went down prior to the sweep, does this still apply?
In the new Necron dex when a Triarch Stalker scores a hit all other shots against that target count as twin linked
Per page 62 or brb “if the save(cover save) is passed, the hit is disregarded and no roll is made on the vehicle damage table”
So if a cover save is made vs a Triarch Stalker successfully does the target still count as hit for purposes of other models getting twin linked shots against it as disregarding the shot only means it disregards the damage result, or was the shot disregarded completely due to the cover save indicating it didn’t hit the model?
This one came up during a recent Apoc game, and we're curious as to how others deal with it. I didn't see it addressed in the current appendix.
In the main Apoc rules:
pg96 Destroyer "... the weapon always inflicts Instant Death... If the target is immune to Instant Death, then the Destroyer will cause one wound..."
however:
pg91 Gargantuan Creatures "All GC are immune to the Instant Death rule... Such attacks cause D3 wounds instead."
Which rule takes precedence - 1 wound or D3 wounds?
xttz wrote:This one came up during a recent Apoc game, and we're curious as to how others deal with it. I didn't see it addressed in the current appendix.
In the main Apoc rules:
pg96 Destroyer "... the weapon always inflicts Instant Death... If the target is immune to Instant Death, then the Destroyer will cause one wound..."
however:
pg91 Gargantuan Creatures "All GC are immune to the Instant Death rule... Such attacks cause D3 wounds instead."
Which rule takes precedence - 1 wound or D3 wounds?
You've actually cut out a vitally important part of that second rules quote.
Attacks that inflict instant death do NOT cause D3 wounds on a Gargantuan Creature. Attacks that simply remove a model from the table do (things like a Shokk Attack gun double 6, Lukas the Trickster's special rule, etc).
So a Destroyer Weapon (which just inflicts instant death) only causes 1 wound on a Gargantuan Creature.
Apparently we need INAT to help clarify if Boarding planks can be used in the opponent's phase the same way Wrecking balls were 'clarified'.
People seem to be parsing 'as if' to mean that if an ork is on a vehicle and within 2" of an opponent, he can make his attacks during the opponent's assault phase because the only requirement is that the ork is making a CC attack, not assaulting.
xttz wrote:This one came up during a recent Apoc game, and we're curious as to how others deal with it. I didn't see it addressed in the current appendix.
In the main Apoc rules:
pg96 Destroyer "... the weapon always inflicts Instant Death... If the target is immune to Instant Death, then the Destroyer will cause one wound..."
however:
pg91 Gargantuan Creatures "All GC are immune to the Instant Death rule... Such attacks cause D3 wounds instead."
Which rule takes precedence - 1 wound or D3 wounds?
You've actually cut out a vitally important part of that second rules quote.
Attacks that inflict instant death do NOT cause D3 wounds on a Gargantuan Creature. Attacks that simply remove a model from the table do (things like a Shokk Attack gun double 6, Lukas the Trickster's special rule, etc).
So a Destroyer Weapon (which just inflicts instant death) only causes 1 wound on a Gargantuan Creature.
Here's the full text:
The text is misleading because it specifcally states a Force Weapon as an example of killing a model automatically, and 'such attacks cause D3 wounds instead'. Force Weapons cause Instant Death according to the 5th Ed rulebook. Therefore it's implied that the whole section refers to ID weapons.
Is this a side effect of a rules change between 4th and 5th edition? Was the ID effect added to Force Weapons after the Apoc book was released?
You have to remember that Apocalypse was printed in 4th ed, not 5th. In 4th , force weapons "removed all remaining wounds from the target." So if you discount the mention of force weapons, the paragraph makes perfect sense.
Just in time for Adepticon, we've put out a very minor update to the INAT: v5.1.1.
So what's changed since v5.1? Not much. Basically:
• One addition (GK.21A.04) - Grey Knights vs. Psyk-out Grenades added on page 50.
• Also, one incorrect question/ruling regarding Grey Knight Brotherhood Champion removed from page 51 (GK.26E.01).
As always, you can download the latest version of the INAT at www.inatfaq.com
And yes, I have gotten all the recent great questions posted in this thread (and the one in the News & Rumors forum), but we didn't want to post too many new changes right before Adepticon, so we will get those questions included the next time we do a major update of the INAT.
My question is, can cover saves be taken against Tau Markerlights? Because the Tau codex is 4th edition some of their rules have become confusing but the errata/FAQ does not address this. I have seen arguments presented for both yes and no, from both players and GW staff. I also understand that it would be silly to give models an armour or invulnerable save against markerlights, but a cover save does seem reasonable. I can also present examples of said arguments upon request.
Cover saves (like armour and invuln saves) can only be taken against wounds. Since the Markerlight does not cause wounds, you cannot take any saves from it.
Happyjew wrote:Cover saves (like armour and invuln saves) can only be taken against wounds. Since the Markerlight does not cause wounds, you cannot take any saves from it.
Against wounds? So no cover saves for vehicles then.
Happyjew wrote:Cover saves (like armour and invuln saves) can only be taken against wounds. Since the Markerlight does not cause wounds, you cannot take any saves from it.
Against wounds? So no cover saves for vehicles then.
Except the rules allow them.
And Glance/Pen are essentially the same thing as wounds when it comes to vehicles. (this line is HIWPI/RAI)
Again, I have heard arguments for both cover saves being allowed and cover saves being disallowed, which is why I am looking for an official ruling on it. I heard on guy at a local tournament successfully argue that markerlight tokens were a form of special wound that did not cause casualties and therefore save could be taken for them. Long story short, not looking to start an argument, just someone who can put the final nail in this thing and have it done.
CarstairsCowboy wrote:Again, I have heard arguments for both cover saves being allowed and cover saves being disallowed, which is why I am looking for an official ruling on it. I heard on guy at a local tournament successfully argue that markerlight tokens were a form of special wound that did not cause casualties and therefore save could be taken for them. Long story short, not looking to start an argument, just someone who can put the final nail in this thing and have it done.
There's no rules basis for allowing them. At all. The guy at your local tournament was full of it.
rigeld2 wrote:[quote=The guy at your local tournament was full of it.
So? He still argued it successfully. With logic and used some of the RAW. It doesn't matter if he was full of it, because the judge ruled in his favour. This is why I want an official FAQ ruling on it, because there are currently two sharply divided camps that can actually produce decent arguments, but have consigned themselves to throwing "You're full of it" at each other. Also, in the future, please don't make a pointless post like that.
rigeld2 wrote:The guy at your local tournament was full of it.
So? He still argued it successfully. With logic and used some of the RAW. It doesn't matter if he was full of it, because the judge ruled in his favour. This is why I want an official FAQ ruling on it, because there are currently two sharply divided camps that can actually produce decent arguments, but have consigned themselves to throwing "You're full of it" at each other. Also, in the future, please don't make a pointless post like that.
There is no RAW to support his point. There's no way to argue against it because there's no basis for it. It's like saying "Your men are red so they automatically take a wound." - you can't argue against that statement because there's no way to back it up with RAW.
The rules require you to take a wound before you can roll a save. Find the permission to take a save at any other time. Markerlights do not cause wounds.
The TO was wrong, and should not have fallen for this.
And the guy still got the ruling. The point is that I did not post to start a long discussion or an argument, just to get a freaking FAQ or answer from someone who has actual authority to make a decision, not to keep replying to online rules lawyers. Unless you work for GW, can it. I know what your opinions are. Already heard them. Don't care.
CarstairsCowboy wrote:And the guy still got the ruling. The point is that I did not post to start a long discussion or an argument, just to get a freaking FAQ or answer from someone who has actual authority to make a decision, not to keep replying to online rules lawyers. Unless you work for GW, can it. I know what your opinions are. Already heard them. Don't care.
And no one here works for GW either.
And I'll drop it to stop polluting the INATFAQ thread. Apologies for having done so.
CarstairsCowboy wrote:And the guy still got the ruling. The point is that I did not post to start a long discussion or an argument, just to get a freaking FAQ or answer from someone who has actual authority to make a decision, not to keep replying to online rules lawyers. Unless you work for GW, can it. I know what your opinions are. Already heard them. Don't care.
The thing is the faq is here to address issues in which there is a notable conflict within the rules. There isn't a discussion when it comes to taking saves against marker lights. You just can't do it as it is not supported by the rules. Also what do you mean by "online rules lawyers", people who actually read the rules, because you clearly don't as this is a clear cut situation. Sorry if I come out a tad too offensive, but you have a question which you got answered and what do you say, you tell somebody to shut up because you need a faq for a clear issue.
If a necron unit is affected by lash of submission and is killed by the shooting attacks from the rest of the unit the lashing psyker is attached to, where do they make their ever-living rolls from?
This came up in a game at adepticon, and I talked to the judge and my opponent and brainstormed how it should be resolved. We decided that the models should be moved before they die. The reason we did this is because lash has three parts (to hit, 2d6 movement, and the pinning test) and normal shooting has 3 parts (to hit, to wound, and armor saves). For simplicity's sake, we assumed that the three different parts each happen at the same time as their parallel. That is to say both rolls to hit are simultaneous, rolls to wound and the 2d6 movement for lash are simultaneous, and the armor saves for the affected unit, as well as their pinning test, is last.
Also, a diagram or ruling on that other thing, assuming 6th doesn't clarify it.
d-usa, SM Cap'n specifically says "Space Marine Bike Squad" of at least 5 models. Scout Bike Squad is not a Space Marine Bike Squad (which has its own entry).
If my royal court is completely divided amongst the army (that is to say, no models remain in the royal court unit) does my opponent get a kill point for the unit? Can he?
Kitzz wrote:But this is not in the INAT, so I posted it here so they might include it in the next iteration.
It doesn't need to be in the INAT. You can't kill what doesn't exist, and once all the models of the Royal Court are deployed to units, the Royal Court no longer exists.
I have a question about the Inat ruling for wraiths. My interpretation of the rules was that they were never slowed by difficult terrain, that does not mean they did not take the test, it just in effect meant that they rolled a 6 for the test and thus most people wouldn't bother. As such would they not still be slowed in assault for just difficult terrain? I play necrons, so am just curious if I am incorrect or not. As far as I know jump infantry are only punished with dangerous during the movement phase. In the assault phase they are treated like regular infantry for movement and dont have to take dangerous terrain tests.
This is already ongoing, but I feel it should definitely be addressed at the next meeting.
Does a unit without the Acts of Faith special rule, benefit from an IC's Act of Faith?
Conflicting rules:
Independent Characters and Acts of Faith (implies that units without the special rule gain no benefit from IC Acts of Faith).
The Passion/Righteous Rage: Both state "The IC and their unit". Note that IC's that have an Act of Faith they can use only have one of these two powers.
Voltaic Staff is FAQ'd that each hit causes a haywire, and the haywire is in addition to any other damage the S5 causes, but it's not specifically spelled out in the INATFAQ that the haywire effect does or doesn't take a -1 on the damage chart for the staff being ap-
Rule is not inconclusive. A Unit is only allowed to declare an assault the unit they shot at (if they fired in the preceding Shooting phase). A unit destroys a transport, has special permission to assault a different unit.
PBS "Weaken Resolve" (IG P. 47) has been beat to death, I know. However it is still unclear in the case of "Command-link drones" (Codex: Tau Empire P.47).
The wording throughout GW game books is so inconsistent, that it is almost like they do it to cause controversy.
Maj.Lee Scrude wrote:PBS "Weaken Resolve" (IG P. 47) has been beat to death, I know. However it is still unclear in the case of "Command-link drones" (Codex: Tau Empire P.47).
The wording throughout GW game books is so inconsistent, that it is almost like they do it to cause controversy.
We've actually addressed this exact issue in the INAT for quite a while now. The question is on pg 62 of the latest version (v5.1.1) and is: IG.47D.03.
As Weaken Resolve continually affects the UNIT's Ld value, we believe this means that even if the unit gets its Ld value from another source (i.e. besides the model in the unit with the highest Ld characteristic) then it still means the unit's Ld value is reduced.
Or in simpler terms, Weaken Resolve still affects a unit's Ld value even when they derive this value from a source outside of the unit, as is the case with Command-link drones.
Entropic Strike - If a unit with entropic strike gets enough hits to outright wreck a vehicle due to stripping the AV to 0, do they continue to roll penetration and damage rolls?
Maelstrom808 wrote:Entropic Strike - If a unit with entropic strike gets enough hits to outright wreck a vehicle due to stripping the AV to 0, do they continue to roll penetration and damage rolls?
Maelstrom808 wrote:Entropic Strike - If a unit with entropic strike gets enough hits to outright wreck a vehicle due to stripping the AV to 0, do they continue to roll penetration and damage rolls?
Wrecked is wrecked, don't beat a dead horse.
You have the possibility of causing wounds to the contents as well as the scarabs themselves if you continue on and get an Explodes! result. Personally I don't care either way as there are almost equal advantages and drawbacks, but I'd like to see a consensus as to how it should be played.
Maelstrom808 wrote:Entropic Strike - If a unit with entropic strike gets enough hits to outright wreck a vehicle due to stripping the AV to 0, do they continue to roll penetration and damage rolls?
Wrecked is wrecked, don't beat a dead horse.
You have the possibility of causing wounds to the contents as well as the scarabs themselves if you continue on and get an Explodes! result. Personally I don't care either way as there are almost equal advantages and drawbacks, but I'd like to see a consensus as to how it should be played.
Can you shoot more lascannons into a wreck in the hopes of getting a destroyed result? The vehicle is "immediately wrecked" when the armor reaches zero, so you can't continue on trying to catch the fuel on fire. Regardless, we'll discuss it next time the INAT has a call if yakface wants to.
can a tank busta's bomb squig be used to attack a flier
hard to hit- "shots resolved against at a zooming flier can only be resolved as snap shots , templates blasts and large templates cannot hit fliers in zoom mode"
bomb squigg "on a roll of 2+ the bomb squig will run straight into the nearest vehicle withing 18" and detonate, causeing a S8 hit"
i read this to mean a squig is not a shot but it also isn't a template it is a model that just runs into stuff most likely as war gear effect
FAQ on bomb squig " no line of sight is required and they move free of any impedements"
flying seems like an impedement to me, adn a squig is not a shot or template so i think it works
..to simplify ... yes yakface I am asking you if pigs can fly
1. Can weapons that do not use BS and do not target a flier---hit the flier (Vibro Cannon, Death Ray, etc.) Auto hit weapons? Tesla Destruction? Mawloc? 2. Does a vehicle that is destroyed disallow the unit from assaulting the next turn? Including Assault Vehicles? 3. How are power weapons going to work? For example, the argument that the aesthetic matters---or? 4. Do Challenge wounds spill over into the unit if it's sufficient to kill the enemy? 5. What is the Strength of the Nemesis Dreadknkight's weapons? Are Doomfists str. 10 with +1 attack now? 6. Initiative Pile In--is it the initiative of the weapon or the actual model? (IE do you pile in at ini 4 with a SM--then he hits with his PF at ini 1)? Similarly, what happens when a model piles in at I4, and ends up in base contact with a Whip Coil/Lash Whip? Does it strike now, or at Init 1? If the latter, does it get a SECOND pile-in move at Init 1, if needed to get into BtB again? 7. Do units that are embarked in Pods (Or other dedicated transports) count against the reserve limit? 8. Do embarked units on a Night Scythe suffer the Str. 10 hits if it's destroyed 9. If a chariot charges a unit and it's impact hits kill the only models in BTB--is the rider denied his attacks? (Provided he is also not I 10) 10. What happens when you hit a flying monstrous creature and he fails his 'Grounded' check? After he is 'grounded', does he still benefit from the hard to hit rule? 11. Can a unit that was embarked on transport that suffered a shaken/stunned result, get out and fire with no ill affect next turn?
AgeOfEgos wrote:1. Can weapons that do not use BS and do not target a flier---hit the flier (Vibro Cannon, Death Ray, etc.) Auto hit weapons?
Tesla Destructor arcing?
6. Initiative Pile In--is is the initiative of the weapon or the actual model? (IE do you pile in at ini 4 with a SM--then he hits with his PF at ini 1)?
Similarly, what happens when a model piles in at I4, and ends up in base contact with a Whip Coil/Lash Whip? Does it strike now, or at Init 1? If the latter, does it get a SECOND pile-in move at Init 1, if needed to get into BtB again?
AgeOfEgos wrote:1. Can weapons that do not use BS and do not target a flier---hit the flier (Vibro Cannon, Death Ray, etc.) Auto hit weapons?
Tesla Destructor arcing?
6. Initiative Pile In--is is the initiative of the weapon or the actual model? (IE do you pile in at ini 4 with a SM--then he hits with his PF at ini 1)?
Similarly, what happens when a model piles in at I4, and ends up in base contact with a Whip Coil/Lash Whip? Does it strike now, or at Init 1? If the latter, does it get a SECOND pile-in move at Init 1, if needed to get into BtB again?
Great questions/points--I've started adding some updates to my original
1) FNP/EW Do models with Eternal Warrior and Feel No Pain USR's still benefit from the FNP save when wounded by a weapon that causes Instant Death?
2) Templates + building levels
When using templates weapons on units inside multi-level ruins, the firing model can only target one level above or below itself with the template. For template weapons with an additional range (such as a Hellhound or Tyrannofex Acid Spray), can they use the extra range to move the template vertically, allowing additional levels of the building to be hit?
3) Assaulting into ruins
The rules prevent monstrous creatures from climbing the upper levels of a ruin unless both players agree beforehand. Should they not agree, does this mean that units on the upper levels of ruins can never be assaulted by MC's - even when the MC model is physically tall enough to reach multiple levels of the ruin? e.g. Wraithlords and Trygons can typically reach the first 2-3 storeys of a building.
rigeld2 wrote:Can Impaler Cannons (that do not need LOS to fire) cause wounds to models/units they cannot see?
Since 6th added rules saying you cannot wound what you cannot see.
I think we should change this to: Can weapons that are able to hit units that are entirely out of sight from the firer (i.e. Impaler Cannon, scattered blast markers) wound them?
rigeld2 wrote:Can Impaler Cannons (that do not need LOS to fire) cause wounds to models/units they cannot see?
Since 6th added rules saying you cannot wound what you cannot see.
I think we should change this to: Can weapons that are able to hit units that are entirely out of sight from the firer (i.e. Impaler Cannon, scattered blast markers) wound them?
Blast markers have an explicit allowance don't they?
But yeah, make it generic for weapons allowed to fire without LOS so it includes Vibro Cannons (for example).
IIRC only barrage has the allowance. Technically even a flamer can hit a unit completely out of sight. For example if the unit is on the opposite side of a tank and the flamer guy is 1" away from the tank, you would be able to cover as much of the tank as possible and still hit some guys you cannot see.
Barrage has the allowance for initial targeting. I thought if a blast marker scatters it was explicitly allowed to wound.
And a template weapon not wounding out of LOS might be correct... RAI anyway. The tank blocking/deflecting enough of the flame that nothing hits the hiding units
So multiple classifications of answers potentially.
Possible conflicting rules with codex Space Wolves.
Page 411 of the 6th ed rules lists Wolf Guard as "In (ch)" universally.
Space Wolves FAQ under the "Amendments" section says in magenta (so new for 6th) the following:
Page 86 - Wolf Guard, Pack Leaders
Add the following sentence to the end of the paragraph
"Furthermore, a Wolf Guard Pack Leader's Unit Type becomes 'Character' in addition to its normal type."
This to me seems to indicate that a Wolf Guard only counts as a "character" when it is broken off into another squad as per the (now amended) Pack Leader rules.
• Do focused witchfire powers need to roll to hit? If so, presuming the psyker is a character and rolls a '6' to hit, how does the Precision Shot rule interact with the focused witchfire mechanic regarding allocating the attack to a specific model (assuming the power causes one or more wounds, of course)?
A few more tyranid queries to add as of 6th edition:
Does a Mawloc arriving from Deep-strike via Terror from the deep on a multi tiered ruin, hit all levels? Does it also hit fliers?
If the previous questions answer was yes, can it also 'push' models off the ruin? Possibly causing them to take 'impact' tests from falling off?
Since the battlements of a bastion is not considered impassible terrain, is a Mawloc able to deep strike onto the battlements of a bastion and push the defenders off (possibly causing impact tests from falling)?
How do boneswords interact with feel no pain? Is the "instant death" effect worked out before or after the "feel no pain" save?
Do boneswords / toxin sacs / rending claws work with Hammer of Wrath?
I know I am going to get some flakk for this (see what I did there), but need to ask.
With the change to Sweeping Advance (specifically that the models are removed as casualties), do abilities that allow a model that comes back after being removed as a casualty (such as Everliving and Miraculous Intervention) allow the models to come back?
NecronLord3 wrote: Is there a time frame for when we are going to get our first 6th edition INATFAQ?
I'd love to tell you that it is imminent, but that would be a lie.
The truth is, 6th edition is a much bigger change in the game than 4th to 5th was, and that required quite a bit of re-writing for the INAT. This is basically like starting over from scratch for the most part.
And to compound the problem I'm not nearly as in love with 6th edition as I was with 5th edition, so my desire to work on the INAT on a regular basis isn't what it should be and on top of that I've got other projects I'm also working on at the same time, which soak up even more of my time.
So the reality is, I don't know when I'll be able to get an update out, but I am in the process of working on it. I'd kind of like GW to get out their next round of FAQs first as hopefully that will include a rulebook FAQ that will answer some of the bigger issues out there first.
yakface wrote: I'd kind of like GW to get out their next round of FAQs first as hopefully that will include a rulebook FAQ that will answer some of the bigger issues out there first.
Ask and you shall receive!
Looks like they cleared up my Wolf Guard issue I posted in this thread as well.
The Mission special rules for Big Guns Never Tire and The Scouring give Heavy Support units and Fast Attack units, respectively, the ability to Score (including vehicles).
Does this also give them the ability to Deny?
Came up at a tournament this past weekend.
So basically all this effects is Vehicles because every other non vehicle unit can already Deny (with a few exceptions). Vehicles are (with a few exceptions), however, the only units that are explicitly disallowed from both Scoring and Denial status.
Marius Xerxes wrote: The Mission special rules for Big Guns Never Tire and The Scouring give Heavy Support units and Fast Attack units, respectively, the ability to Score (including vehicles).
Related question: the mission provides specific allowance for vehicles to score; do other non-scoring-units in the FA or Heavy slots get the same permission? (For example, Necron Scarabs or Tyranid Flying-rippers.)
Hello, my computer here is slow so I didn't read the entire thread, but even though Forgeworld has issued some updates for Gargantuan Creatures, they still have not said if Angraath or Aetaosraukeres (the Tzeentch Daemon Lord), are to be treated like Flying Monstrous Creatures, ie Swooping vs Gliding.
Seeing as how they have Daemonic Flight, shouldn't they be considered Flying like the little Greater Daemons? And then what would the ranges be on their Swooping/Gliding? Angraath's most recent Jump was 30", and the Slayer of Souls' was 20". So would the Jump distance be the Glide distance, with the Swoop distance being double that? Or should they just both be 18"/36"? Hmmm.
And then if Flying GCs, whilst Swooping can they choose to Skyfire some weapons at other Flyers, and some weapons to ground targets, since they can shoot at any units? Such is the power and skill of Gargantuan Creatures? I vote heck yes (if that counts for anything)....
Automatically Appended Next Post: Does the Tally of Pestilence, once granting the Noxious Touch gift to followers of Nurgle which are not Daemon models, permit the non-Daemon models to use Noxious Touch in close combat, wounding on a 2+? There's a hot-thread, so this would be a good rule to address
I fear we will need many more rules judges at Adepticon 2013.
So if people have rules questions in other threads, let's all post polls, so we can get general concensus more up front, so we don't waste precious game time summoning judges to tables constantly.
All right, got a long one here. Most of these are already very clear. Some of them have been argued quite a bit. Some of them are clearly not how anyone would actually play it. As a side note, I already e-mailed this list to GW.
General:
Spoiler:
• Do psychic powers stack with themselves (such as Hammerhand being cast upon the same unit multiple times)? • How does FNP interact with abilities that are triggered off of unsaved wounds (such as Entropic Strike, and Hexblade)? • Can the Relic be taken off the table (such as a squad of Necron Warriors picking up the Relic and embarking upon a Nightscythe, causing the unit to go into Reserves if the Nightscythe crashes)? • How does Preferred Enemy work when a unit has Preferred Enemy against only a single model in a unit (such as Blood Angels attacking a squad that includes Abaddon)? • Is there a difference between "Remove from Play" and "Remove from Play as a Casualty"? • Certain weapons/psychic powers do not require line of sight to target a unit. Can wounds still be allocated to a unit that is completely out of sight? This would include scattered blast markers and template weapons. • Can psychic powers that affect all units in range, regardless of line of sight (such as a Nova Witchfire power) able to affect a unit that is embarked upon a transport? • Can an Infantry unit Run, if an Independent Character on a bike is joined to the unit? • Certain units may always use the Deep Strike rule (such as models in Terminator armour). Do these models count towards the 50% reserve limit. Are they able to ignore the 50% reserve limit (for example, an IC in Terminator armour, and two squads of Terminators with the rest of the army in Drop Pods, can the IC and both squads of terminators start in reserves)? • Do models that ignore difficult terrain also ignore dangerous terrain? If not do they automatically pass Dangerous Terrain tests? • Does a model involved in a Challenge still use the majority weapon Skill, if his opponent is a member of a multiple Weapon Skill value unit? • If an Independent Character with the Infiltrate special rule joins a unit without, can the unit Infiltrate? • If a unit is is in a transport that moved Cruising Speed and are forced to get out (such as losing its last hull point due to being immobilised from dangerous terrain, or arriving via a Drop Pod), does the unit fire normally or do they fire Snap Shots? • Can a Zooming Flyer/Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature be hit by a blast or template weapon that has the Skyfire special rule?
Chaos Space Marines/Dark Angels:
Spoiler:
• Can a model with access to Melee Weapons replace a special CCW, such as a Power Weapon, or is it only generic CCWs such as Combat Blades? • Can model replace grenades with a Ranged Weapon or Chaos Artifact? • Can a model replace a weapon that he purchases (such as the boltgun on a Chaos Bike)?
Dark Angels:
Spoiler:
• Can an Apothecary/Company Champion take options available to any Veteran, prior to being upgraded to an Apothecary/Company Champion, for example, replacing his bolt pistol with a plasma pistol, and then taking the upgrade? • Does the Deathwing/Ravenwing Apothecary have to be in a Command Squad or can they be taken by a regular Deathwing/Ravenwing unit? • Do units electing to use Deathwing Assault counts towards the 50% reserve limit? If I have an entire army consisting of units with Deathwing Assault can I start them all in Reserves? • if a Deathwing Knight is affected by Mindshackle Scarabs, can the Necron player opt to use the Smite mode for the attacks? • Can a Venerable Dreadnought take options available to a Dreadnought. such as Extra Armour? • Can a Deathwing Terminator take a Cyclone missile launcher, if they trade in all of their weapons for a pair of lightning claws or thunder hammer/storm shield?
Eldar:
Spoiler:
• Can a Farseer embarked upon a transport, cast Farseer psychic powers on his unit or the transport? • Does the Singing Spear use the rules presented in Codex: Eldar (wounds on a 2+, Strength 9 vs vehicles) or does it use the rules for the Witchblade (Strength user, Fleshabne, Armourbane)? • Does Eldritch Storm require Line of Sight to the target unit? • Does a model with Eternal Warrior get removed upon a failed Leadership test caused by a Diresword? • What is the melee profile for a Triskele? • Chainsabres say that they house twin-linked shuriken pistols. Does this give the Striking Scorpion Exarch Shuriken Pistols that can be fired, and if so does he have 1 or 2 pistols? • Does a unit of Swooping Hawks using the Skyleap power go into normal Reserves or Ongoing Reserves? • If a vehicle is hit by a Vibro Cannon Battery, with more than 1 Vibro Cannons, does it suffer a single Glancing Hit, or does it suffer 1 glancing hit per Vibro Cannon that successfully rolls to Hit? • Can an Independent Character, joined with a unit of Wraithguard that failed their Wraithsight roll, make a Sweeping Advance? • Per the Codex, Eldrad can use a third power (which may be one he already used) if not in an assault. Per the Eldar FAQ, Eldrad is Mastery level 3. Can Eldrad's third power be one he has already used? • What is the melee profile for the Staff of Ulthamar? • What is the melee profile for the Spear of Twilight? • How does the Eye of Wrath work if Prince Yriel is in a Challenge, do all the models under the marker take a hit, does only the challenger take a hit, or does everyone take a hit but all the wounds are allocated to the challenger? • If a Phoenix Lord joins a non-aspect unit, does the unit benefit from the Phoenix Lord's Fearless special rule? • What is the melee profile for the Silent Death? • Do non-aspect units that Baharroth joins benefit from his Hit and Run special rule? • Do non-aspect units joined by karandras benefit from his Stealth special rule? Furthermore, do they benefit from his Move Through Cover and Infiltrate/Outflank? • Do non-aspect units joined by Fuegan benefit from his Tank Hunters special rule?
Grey Knights:
Spoiler:
• Does the Neural Shredder use the majority Leadership when determining what to Wound on? • If a unit that has the Brotherhood of Psyker special rule is affected by Mindshackle Scarabs, can the Necron player choose to activate all the Force Weapons, assuming the affected model strikes first? Necrons: • If a model with the Everliving special rule is caught in a Sweeping Advance, can the model attempt the roll? • If a model with the Everliving special rule is "killed" in close combat, and his unit is subsequently caught in a Sweeping Advance, can the model attempt the roll? • Can a model with Reanimation Protocols/Everliving attempt to come back from things that remove the model from play (such as Jaws of the World Wolf)?
Orks:
Spoiler:
• If a weirdboy is in combat and gets a power weapon, does it follow the rules for Unique power weapons or do you look at the model?
Space Marines
Spoiler:
• Drop Pods are treated as having suffered an Immobilised result after they are in play. Does this include losing a Hull Point?
Tau
Spoiler:
• If a vehicle is controlling a Skyfire Nexus, do the Seeker Missile gain the Skyfire special rule?
The organizers of the Bay Area Open have posted the first public draft of an FAQ that they have been working on along with other TO's of major tourneys.
Magc8Ball wrote: The organizers of the Bay Area Open have posted the first public draft of an FAQ that they have been working on along with other TO's of major tourneys.
I may not agree with some of the rulings, however, a lot of them do make sense. Glad to see TO's at least are addressing some of the issues brought up.
I may not agree with some of the rulings, however, a lot of them do make sense. Glad to see TO's at least are addressing some of the issues brought up.
Hey I forgot to thank you for that post of collected questions above, it was uphelpful towards making that FAQ.
