Howdy everyone,

Attached below is the latest version (v3.2) of the Independent National Warhammer 40,000 Tournament FAQ (INAT FAQ), produced primarily for Adepticon 2010...and barring any additional GW FAQs will be the last update until after Adepticon.

This updated version now covers the new Tyranids codex that was released in January and brings the Space Wolves section back into line with GW's rulings in their official Space Wolves FAQ (which was released after INAT v3.1).

As always, any questions/rulings that have been altered from the 3.1 version have been denoted as such with a 'plus sign' ( + ) before the question # and have their 'answer text' colored red (just as with the 3.1 version) to make it easy for you to spot what has been changed. We have indeed altered/reversed a few rulings previously made in the 3.1 version of the FAQ based on user feedback, so please make sure you take the time to quickly scan over the whole document to see what has changed.


Also attached to the post below is the brand new INAT Appendix v1.0. This brings back all the Imperial Armor/Apocalypse questions we used to have in the INAT into a separate document so only those playing in a tournament allowing such rules (such as at Adepticon) need to bother with all those additional questions and answers.


Further feedback for future iterations of the FAQ is always welcome and can be done so in this thread or by sending an email to:

adepticon@gmail.com


As always, thanks again to everyone who helped out this process by giving us quality feedback and constructive criticism. We certainly appreciate it!



CORRECTIONS TO THE INAT FAQ v3.2

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

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

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

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

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

Heh, Spirit Leech can effect units inside vehicles?

Chimera parking lots are going to dig that spore coming down.


I don't quite understand the Hive Tyrant/Tyrant Guard rules, could be me missing it. At one point the FAQ states it is one unit in close combat (Retinue?). At another point though, it answers a question about what would happen if the Hive Tyrant is killed before the Tyrant Guard attack (Indicating he can be picked out in close combat). Which is it?

And by dig it, you mean kill it with Inquisitor/Mystic/Pyscannon combos.

AgeOfEgos wrote:Heh, Spirit Leech can effect units inside vehicles?

Chimera parking lots are going to dig that spore coming down.

With units inside getting cover saves against wounds inflicted by Spirit Leech you're talking about an average of less than 2-3 wounds if the Embarked unit has at least Ld8. All in all it seems like a good compromise of following what the rules seem to indicate...but personally I hope GW comes out with its FAQ and changes the rules of the game disallowing embarked units from every suffering wounds, but that would be a change to the rules as written (even though it has never really come up before) and it was a big enough change that we didn't really feel comfortable making...that's more of something GW has to jump on and do themselves if they want.

I don't quite understand the Hive Tyrant/Tyrant Guard rules, could be me missing it. At one point the FAQ states it is one unit in close combat (Retinue?). At another point though, it answers a question about what would happen if the Hive Tyrant is killed before the Tyrant Guard attack (Indicating he can be picked out in close combat). Which is it?

They do form a single unit (i.e. the Tyrant can't be picked out in combat or by shooting), but the 2nd question you're referring to is about whether or not the Tyrant Guard's 'Furious Charge' ability can suddenly kick-in in the middle of a combat if the Tyrant dies...please remember with wound allocation it is entirely possible for the Tyrant to die in combat through bad armor saving throws before all of his Tyrant Guard do!

yakface wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:Heh, Spirit Leech can effect units inside vehicles?

Chimera parking lots are going to dig that spore coming down.

With units inside getting cover saves against wounds inflicted by Spirit Leech you're talking about an average of less than 2-3 wounds if the Embarked unit has at least Ld8. All in all it seems like a good compromise of following what the rules seem to indicate...but personally I hope GW comes out with its FAQ and changes the rules of the game disallowing embarked units from every suffering wounds, but that would be a change to the rules as written (even though it has never really come up before) and it was a big enough change that we didn't really feel comfortable making...that's more of something GW has to jump on and do themselves if they want.

I don't quite understand the Hive Tyrant/Tyrant Guard rules, could be me missing it. At one point the FAQ states it is one unit in close combat (Retinue?). At another point though, it answers a question about what would happen if the Hive Tyrant is killed before the Tyrant Guard attack (Indicating he can be picked out in close combat). Which is it?

They do form a single unit (i.e. the Tyrant can't be picked out in combat or by shooting), but the 2nd question you're referring to is about whether or not the Tyrant Guard's 'Furious Charge' ability can suddenly kick-in in the middle of a combat if the Tyrant dies...please remember with wound allocation it is entirely possible for the Tyrant to die in combat through bad armor saving throws before all of his Tyrant Guard do!

Right, I'm with you regarding balance/cover saves....I was mainly surprised you allowed something to effect units inside vehicles.

The ruling regarding the Tyrant also kind of surprised me. I figured it would be 'They form a retinue and he may never leave it'. I could see a Flyrant walking/running around with Tyrant Guard then jumping out to go eat units once it got close.

I like the compromise with the DoM. Absent any real clarification from GW, having it affect models in a vehicle and giving them cover seems like a reasonable answer. As much fun and really wierd as it would be for the unit to be able to GtG in a vehicle, I can see a few good reasons to disallow it.

Since you're in an explaining mode, how is it that Mawlocs (and I noticed you all went back and added this to other sections, such as the monolith, as well) are allowed to deep strike without placing the model on the table, as the rules on page 95 clearly state?

I'm very disappointed in this latest set of "clarifications". In the past, the INT has been very conservative with regard to the interpretation of questionable rules. Disallowing a lash sorcerer joined to a unit from moving the target prior to a flamer in that unit from working, disallowing deff rollas from affecting vehicles, and generally erring on the side of caution.

Every questionable ruling on the tyranids is the liberal interpretation, in favour of the tyranid army. How you can claim that it's balanced to allow a hive tyrant to claim a cover save when he and a guard stand behind a couple of gaunts, but it's unbalanced to let a deff rolla hit a vehicle is beyond me.

AgeOfEgos wrote:
Right, I'm with you regarding balance/cover saves....I was mainly surprised you allowed something to effect units inside vehicles.

The ruling regarding the Tyrant also kind of surprised me. I figured it would be 'They form a retinue and he may never leave it'. I could see a Flyrant walking/running around with Tyrant Guard then jumping out to go eat units once it got close.

Well, with Spirit Leech, the problem is that all units within range are affected, period. And the rules for embarked units clearly say that you measure to the vehicle's hull for things affecting embarked units. Now, GW went and ruled in their FAQ regarding psychic powers that they can't affect embarked units, but this WAS a rule change, and as written only applies to psychic powers.

So when you get to Spirit Leech, you have a (non-psychic power) special rule that affects all units within its range...there is absolutely no basis in the rules, or even in the fluff why this ability shouldn't affect embarked units. The only strike against is really that up until this point there hasn't really been anything in the game that is able to cause wounds against embarked units. But that alone doesn't mean it isn't what GW intended to happen.

So there were some voting that thought we should just step up and make a rule change disallowing Spirit Leech from affecting embarked units, but again, at the end of the day the rules DO seem to allow it, so really if GW doesn't want something like this from occurring they need to make the rules change themselves like they did with psychic powers affecting embarked units.


As for the Tyrant Guard, again its a tough call because the rules are really sloppily written. Besides Space Wolf Fenrisian Wolves, GW has shown a clear trend since the start of its 5th edition style codexes (starting back in 4th edition with the Dark Angels) to not using the 'retinue' rules anymore. So how they chose to include the rule allowing a Tyrant to join Tyrant Guard is perplexing.

At the end of the day we made this ruling based upon how we think most people would generally interpret the rules and choose to play it naturally...of course we could be dead wrong, but we were kind of under a bit of a time crunch to get this update out in time for Adpepticon which didn't leave us the normal amount of time to see how people are playing with a new codex before making a ruling about it.

Again, hopefully GW will rule on this topic before Adepticon, but my rough guess would be that they will rule the same way we did on this one...although I've been surprised many times before, so who knows (or if they'll even rule on it)!

yakface wrote:
So there were some voting that thought we should just step up and make a rule change disallowing Spirit Leech from affecting embarked units...

It would have been more consistent with how questionable rules in other codexes have been handled. Look at the daemonic gift, "Aura of Decay". You have ruled (according to the + sign next to it in this version of the FAQ) that because it is a shooting power, it needs line of sight. Spirit Leech is also a shooting power (used in the shooting phase) - why does it not need line of sight? Or why does Aura of Decay? I mena, this isn't even consistent with rulings made from the same update to the FAQ? Why are nids getting such liberal interpretations compared to every other codex?

How many INAT members play nids? It seems like there is some sort of a bias here, and I doubt it's conscious, but the approach taken with the nid questions isn't consistent with the other codexes.

Redbeard wrote:Since you're in an explaining mode, how is it that Mawlocs (and I noticed you all went back and added this to other sections, such as the monolith, as well) are allowed to deep strike without placing the model on the table, as the rules on page 95 clearly state?

Regarding the Mawloc and Deep Strike (and the same ruling applies to Spore Mines, Monoliths, Pylons, etc), there are two ways to interpret the whole 'place the initial Deep Striking model on the table' (sorry I'm paraphrasing here, as I don't have my rulebook on me at the moment).


1) That 'on the table' means the model must physically be placed on the tabletop (i.e. not on top of any other models). The problem with this interpretation is that there is no definition of what exactly constitutes 'the table'. Is putting the model on a hill count as being on the 'table'? Does putting the model on a building count as putting it on the 'table'? Etc. Obviously you can step in and define what constitutes 'the table' in this case, but it is a judgement call you have to make in order to play with this interpretation.


2) The 2nd interpretation of 'on the table' is simply that 'the table' represent the area you're playing on (i.e. typically the 4'x6' playing area). As long as you place the initial model anywhere within this area, you're fulfilling the rule.


We obviously fall into the camp adhering to the 2nd interpretation.

I think another way to choose to play this way is because most people (I've encountered) seem to recognize that the initial Deep Strike placement doesn't really count as the model sitting there in the game...it is essentially a marker that may or may not end up being the final place where the Deep Striking model/unit arrives.

A good example of this is the Space Marine Drop Pod. There were a few people who played that the initial placement of the model meant 'that's where it was' on the table and then if it scattered, this scatter represented a 'move' and therefore this 'move' would be interrupted by contacting an enemy unit, for example. The net result of this interpretation was that even if they player rolled a high enough scatter distance to take the Drop Pod COMPLETELY OVER an enemy unit they would still claim that the Pod 'stopped' when it hit the enemy unit because its initial placement meant it WAS on the table.

Besides my own personal experiences, I also took a poll here on Dakka:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/221120.page

Although the number of votes is low, you can see that the results are VERY lopsided. Most people seem to play that the initial placement of the Drop Pod doesn't really count as it being 'on the table'.


Of course, that vote was for a particular situation and some of the same people may vote completely different when asked the specific question about the Mawloc, but when trying to establish a sense of consistency throughout our rulings, I think it is important to at least TRY to take rulings based on similar principles into account.

I'm very disappointed in this latest set of "clarifications". In the past, the INT has been very conservative with regard to the interpretation of questionable rules. Disallowing a lash sorcerer joined to a unit from moving the target prior to a flamer in that unit from working, disallowing deff rollas from affecting vehicles, and generally erring on the side of caution.

Every questionable ruling on the tyranids is the liberal interpretation, in favour of the tyranid army. How you can claim that it's balanced to allow a hive tyrant to claim a cover save when he and a guard stand behind a couple of gaunts, but it's unbalanced to let a deff rolla hit a vehicle is beyond me.

Well, we're certainly far from perfect, so all I can recommend is that if you can take the time to write up your points in a nice coherent summary of where you think we went wrong and why we will absolutely take it into consideration for the next update (which we're doing after the release of each new codex now). We've reversed rulings in the past that in hindsight we feel like we blew and we'll continue to do so. The more salient feedback we get the better!

And one last thing: We did originally rule to allow the Deff Rolla to work during Rams, it was only because we were trying to match the UK GT house rules (and they claimed that they had inside information from the studio that if GW ever ruled on the matter they would rule against it) that we changed ours. I still believe the rules as written technically allow it...


I hope that explains things a bit!





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Redbeard wrote:

yakface wrote:
So there were some voting that thought we should just step up and make a rule change disallowing Spirit Leech from affecting embarked units...

It would have been more consistent with how questionable rules in other codexes have been handled. Look at the daemonic gift, "Aura of Decay". You have ruled (according to the + sign next to it in this version of the FAQ) that because it is a shooting power, it needs line of sight. Spirit Leech is also a shooting power (used in the shooting phase) - why does it not need line of sight? Or why does Aura of Decay? I mena, this isn't even consistent with rulings made from the same update to the FAQ? Why are nids getting such liberal interpretations compared to every other codex?

How many INAT members play nids? It seems like there is some sort of a bias here, and I doubt it's conscious, but the approach taken with the nid questions isn't consistent with the other codexes.

The BIG difference is that 'Aura of Decay' clearly states that it is a 'ranged weapon' in its rules. Spirit Leech is just a special rule that is used in the Shooting Phase. If there was any indication at all that Spirit Leech was some sort of shooting attack then believe me, we would be ruling the exact same way, but it IS different. It is just a special rule that affects all units within a certain distance and happens at the start of the shooting phase. There is no indication that it counts as the model's shooting attack for the turn and there is no indication at all that it needs line of sight.

Again, I hope GW steps in and clarifies what they wrote, but as they wrote it, it really does appear that it should affect embarked units.



As for what members of the council are playing, I've played Tyranids in the past, but my army's not really playable now...I know some others have Tyranid armies too, but I couldn't tell you who (if any) will be using any Tyranids this year at Adepticon. The only thing I know for sure is that my team won't be!

I can say this -

1) I am on the INAT team.
2) I do not actively play nids. I have some genestealers and the like, but have no interest in playing nids.
3) I am more than comfortable with all the rulings that were made with the INAT.

Alex - if we operated with the degree of transparency that people such as yourself desire, we would grind ourselves into the ground. I can say that the INAT staff is stretched to our limits. Not only do we diligently work to provide a quality document that the community can use if they choose, but also put on one of the highest quality shows (AdeptiCon) that the world has seen. This all along with balancing our personal and professional lives without any true benefit beyond the knowledge that we are hopefully helping community members remove potential arguments during game play and increase the chances of having a fun time.

The INAT team has no desire for person gain from our work. All of the professionals that I work with on this team are above such pettiness. The desire for personal gain would compromise the integrity of the document itself and for what? Personal glory in miniature games. We all have far better things to do with our time.

Here is a quick run down of the shooting phase and how it relates to Spirit Leach

1.) Check LOS & Pick a Target Spirit Leach is exempt from both. It neither requires LOS or picks a Target.

2.) Check Range. It does have a range and you do check range.

3.) Roll to Hit. Spirit Leach is exempt

4.) Roll to Wound. Spirit Leach is exempt

5.) Take Saving Throws. Spirit Leach disallows armor saves, cover was debated, and Invulnerable is clear

6.) Remove Casualties.


Since Saving Throws, and Casualty removal are fairly universal to any phase (movement-Dangerous terrrain, assualt etc.) the first 4, seem to clearly define a shooting attack.

In this case the Spirit Leach (SL) is exempted from 75% of the shooting attack rules. Furthermore, the DoM has an attack defined as a shooting attack that follows the normal rules for shooting. Finally, SL happens at the start of BOTH players shooting phases.

These factors combined, lead the council to consider SL as something other than a shooting attack. It is also not defined as a psychic power so you are left with something that is neither a shooting attack or psychic power.

Hence, all we were left with is this BBB page 66

"If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicles hull" (Its shooting refers to the shooting of the embarked unit)

Thus, the logic flow goes like this:

Is the transport within 6"... YES

Since the SL effects UNITS and not models (more on this in a bit) by definition the embarked UNIT is considered in range of SL.

Why rule differently for Nurgle's Rot?

Nurgle's Rot is a Psychic power and by GW's FAQ, units in transports cannot be affected by psychic powers.

Why Rule differently for Aura of Decay (AoD)?

Page 75 Codex Daemons

"Aura of Decay is a ranged weapon, but the daemon maybe in close combat at the time it uses it, as may the targets. When used all enemy Models within 6" of the daemon automatically suffer a Str 2 hit with AP-

Two distinct differences are noted at this point:

1.) AoD is a range weapon. SL is never described as such, it is simply listed as a passive ability that occurs at the beginning of each shooting phase.
2.) The power effects Models not units. While the rulebook is clear that measuring range to a "Unit" is done by measuring to the hull it makes no such distinction for models.

Since it is impossible to tell which "models" of a unit would be in range and because AoD behaves more like a shooting attack than SL we determined it not to affect units in a transport.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Whew,

All that stated, it is my hope that GW produces a viable FAQ covering DoM and Spirit Leach ASAP. It doesn't matter which way they go on the issue, I will be happy to play it either way. It isn't about personal bias on the INAT Council it is about:

"The purpose of this FAQ is to give players advance knowledge of how tournament judges will be ruling the myriad of tricky situations that arise in games of 40k at the event they are planning to attend."

-INAT FAQ page 2

Happy Gaming,

Chris

Yeah just the deffrolla thingy;
I don't understand why when the rules make it work (& there being fluff from the codex about it too “Steamrolling enemy infantry and light vehicles,”)) the choice made is to go against these things is based on what? Vehicles not being units or a ram not being a type of tank-shock? Which parts were taken into consideration when this was discussed?

I emailed these to the adepticon@gmail address but will post them here for consumption as well.


TYR.51B.03 and TYR.58B.02 state that cover saves may be taken against Terror From The Deep and Spirit Leech.

The wording on the former states that a unit "suffers a number of S6, AP2 equal to the number of models [under the marker]" and the latter states that a unit "suffers a single wound for each point they failed by, no armor saves allowed."

I'd like to note that the same wording applies to the Tervigon's "Brood Progenitor" rule. The same wording is also used in the wording for the Deffrolla, and possibly a number of other non-shooting attacks in the game.


In other words, a battlewagon with a deffrolla attempts to run over a tervigon in range of a venomthrope. The tervigon takes 6 S10 hits, but gets cover saves from the venomthrope. It dies, and the termagant broods in range of it may take cover saves from the psychic backlash of their parent's death by being in woods. Alternatively, a unit may take cover saves from a vehicle's explosion while embarked on said vehicle. I'm not going to pull RAI on you, but it's looking rather silly.

I would specifically disallow cover from any attack unless it is a shooting weapon, Psychic Shooting Attack, or states specifically that it allows cover saves, because doing otherwise opens the door for potential abuses. Plus, it's not like being inside a vehicle won't completely protect you from the entire rest of the Tyranid army, anyway.


Secondly, I have to point out that "termagaunts" do not exist. The term is "termagant" which also refers to the god that was believed to be worshiped by the Muslims centuries ago ...or a shrewish, old woman. Tyranids had a habit of being named after real things (tyrant, ripper, carnifex, ravener) before Robin Cruddace made up some of the newer, nonsensical names. Comically enough, termagant does not anger my spellchecker like termagaunt does.


If you disallow Psychic Scream (which hits "all" units within 2D6") from affecting units not visible to the user, you should include a clause for the same restriction on Jaws of the World Wolf.


Implant Attack states "regardless of the opponent's Toughness" very explicitly in the ruling. It's safe to say that in the rare case of a model being unable to wound under normal circumstances, Implant Attack will override this. It's a moot point, as all models with Implant Attack come with built-in rending claws or are monstrous.


The venomthrope's spore cloud says that the 5+ cover save may be taken against any shooting attacks, so RAW would dictate that you may take these saves against flamers. I recommend you append "except those against which no cover saves may be taken" to the end of this.


Please specify that models with wings only move as Jump Infantry and thus cannot Deep Strike.


Finally, you should probably include that the Avatar of Khaine is not affected by the pyrovore's flamespurt.

Inquisitor_Malice wrote:
The INAT team has no desire for person gain from our work. All of the professionals that I work with on this team are above such pettiness. The desire for personal gain would compromise the integrity of the document itself and for what? Personal glory in miniature games. We all have far better things to do with our time.

I'm aware of that. However, it is an established fact that biases do exist, even when those in the positions to make the decisions have seemingly no interest in personal gain.

Scientific studies have shown that;

NBA Referees, even African-American refs, call more fouls on African-American players than they do on Caucasian players. There's seemingly no reason for this, but statistics bear it out.
NBA referees also have favourites. Some players get away with things that others do not. Some players get the benefit of the doubt, others do not. This was reported on 60 minutes earlier this year.
Soccer referees call more fouls on taller players. This was published in the Wall Street Journal yesterday.

In none of these cases do the refs involved have any personal gain from their decisions, and yet their decisions are biased.

I'm not saying that anyone on the INAT team is making decisions based on personal gain. There does, however, appear to be a bias in favour of the tyranids. Other codexes have consistently been ruled against with a very conservative trend, but all these new rulings for nids take the most liberal interpretations possible, that favour the tyranid player. Just because none of you are playing nids in this year's Adepticon doesn't mean that many of you haven't played them in the past, or don't have soft-spot for them. Again, I don't think it has anything to do with personal gain. But biases can exist, even where personal gain isn't involved.

Redbeard wrote:

yakface wrote:
So there were some voting that thought we should just step up and make a rule change disallowing Spirit Leech from affecting embarked units...

It would have been more consistent with how questionable rules in other codexes have been handled. Look at the daemonic gift, "Aura of Decay". You have ruled (according to the + sign next to it in this version of the FAQ) that because it is a shooting power, it needs line of sight. Spirit Leech is also a shooting power (used in the shooting phase) - why does it not need line of sight? Or why does Aura of Decay? I mena, this isn't even consistent with rulings made from the same update to the FAQ? Why are nids getting such liberal interpretations compared to every other codex?

How many INAT members play nids? It seems like there is some sort of a bias here, and I doubt it's conscious, but the approach taken with the nid questions isn't consistent with the other codexes.

. . . Spirit Leech isn't a shooting attack, it's an aura.

Are you going to make a judgement on "overkill" wounds causing more Acid Blood tests? and about being able to Deep Strike with a winged Tyrant?

And on a more general rules note: If a player gets bonuses for reserve rolls, can that cause units to come on automaticallly (before 5th turn)? example: +2 to reserve rolls = auto deploy on turn 3...

yakface wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:
Right, I'm with you regarding balance/cover saves....I was mainly surprised you allowed something to effect units inside vehicles.

The ruling regarding the Tyrant also kind of surprised me. I figured it would be 'They form a retinue and he may never leave it'. I could see a Flyrant walking/running around with Tyrant Guard then jumping out to go eat units once it got close.

Well, with Spirit Leech, the problem is that all units within range are affected, period. And the rules for embarked units clearly say that you measure to the vehicle's hull for things affecting embarked units. Now, GW went and ruled in their FAQ regarding psychic powers that they can't affect embarked units, but this WAS a rule change, and as written only applies to psychic powers.

So when you get to Spirit Leech, you have a (non-psychic power) special rule that affects all units within its range...there is absolutely no basis in the rules, or even in the fluff why this ability shouldn't affect embarked units. The only strike against is really that up until this point there hasn't really been anything in the game that is able to cause wounds against embarked units. But that alone doesn't mean it isn't what GW intended to happen.

So there were some voting that thought we should just step up and make a rule change disallowing Spirit Leech from affecting embarked units, but again, at the end of the day the rules DO seem to allow it, so really if GW doesn't want something like this from occurring they need to make the rules change themselves like they did with psychic powers affecting embarked units.


As for the Tyrant Guard, again its a tough call because the rules are really sloppily written. Besides Space Wolf Fenrisian Wolves, GW has shown a clear trend since the start of its 5th edition style codexes (starting back in 4th edition with the Dark Angels) to not using the 'retinue' rules anymore. So how they chose to include the rule allowing a Tyrant to join Tyrant Guard is perplexing.

At the end of the day we made this ruling based upon how we think most people would generally interpret the rules and choose to play it naturally...of course we could be dead wrong, but we were kind of under a bit of a time crunch to get this update out in time for Adpepticon which didn't leave us the normal amount of time to see how people are playing with a new codex before making a ruling about it.

Again, hopefully GW will rule on this topic before Adepticon, but my rough guess would be that they will rule the same way we did on this one...although I've been surprised many times before, so who knows (or if they'll even rule on it)!

Hey Yak, cheers for the reply. Reasonable explanations albeit I still don't quite agree with the Tyrant/Tyrant Guard. Seems like the Tyrant gets the best of both worlds here, using retinue rules in HTH while affording the luxury of popping out if need be. Who knows though, it certainly is vague!

ChrisCP wrote:Yeah just the deffrolla thingy;
I don't understand why when the rules make it work (& there being fluff from the codex about it too “Steamrolling enemy infantry and light vehicles,”)) the choice made is to go against these things is based on what? Vehicles not being units or a ram not being a type of tank-shock? Which parts were taken into consideration when this was discussed?

Chris,

I'm not going to go into the whole explanation again as I've done so several times in the past already. Suffice to say, there is a large percentage of players who feel that ultimately even though Ramming is mentioned to be a special form of Tank Shocking, that ultimately the two are separate types of actions each with its own set of rules. While I don't personally agree with the argument, you can look through old YMDC forum threads to read all the reasons why people believe this is the correct interpretation of the rules.

One other thing to remember is that when the Deff Rolla rule was written, vehicles were still able to Tank Shock other vehicles that had a lower frontal armor value (4th edition).


But anyway, like I said, our initial ruling was in agreement with your opinion, but in an attempt to have the INAT FAQ match the UKGT house rules on such a big issue we deferred to their ruling especially as they said they had gotten word from the studio in this particular case.

Thankyou for the explanation behind the reasoning - as you said it's a big issue. The deferring approach take sounds quite sensible as it could cause even more arguments otherwise.

Cheers again.

airmang wrote:Are you going to make a judgement on "overkill" wounds causing more Acid Blood tests? and about being able to Deep Strike with a winged Tyrant?

And on a more general rules note: If a player gets bonuses for reserve rolls, can that cause units to come on automaticallly (before 5th turn)? example: +2 to reserve rolls = auto deploy on turn 3...

We will make a judgement on 'overkill' wounds, but not until we update the INAT again, which likely won't be until either GW releases their Tyranid FAQ or another codex. But you can safely assume that our ruling (and any judge at Adepticon) will rule that 'overkill' wounds do not count towards acid blood attacks...personally I think that's pretty much a safe blanket statement to make regarding any and all rules...if the wound isn't actually inflicted on a model (because you've killed them all) then those wounds don't count towards anything unless explicitly specified otherwise.

As for the Reserves question, again its something that definitely could be included in the next update and I'm 95% sure that we will rule with the RAW in this case in that there is no 'a 1 always fails' rule in place for Reserve rolls, so yes, you can have rolls that automatically succeed on a '1+' if you have modifiers on your Reserves rolls.

Finally, the ruling regarding the Deep Striking Hive Tyrant has already been made in the current INAT...check out the Jump Infantry section of the rulebook FAQ.


And thanks for the questions!

Broken Loose wrote:
Secondly, I have to point out that "termagaunts" do not exist. The term is "termagant" which also refers to the god that was believed to be worshiped by the Muslims centuries ago ...or a shrewish, old woman. Tyranids had a habit of being named after real things (tyrant, ripper, carnifex, ravener) before Robin Cruddace made up some of the newer, nonsensical names. Comically enough, termagant does not anger my spellchecker like termagaunt does.

Thanks for all the great feedback, I appreciate it!

I'll definitely get 'Termagant' fixed in the next update...the funny thing is when I run spell check on the INAT there are so many fake 40K words that pop-up I just get in the habit of skipping through all of them, not occurring to me that I might actually be misspelling one of their words!

If you disallow Psychic Scream (which hits "all" units within 2D6") from affecting units not visible to the user, you should include a clause for the same restriction on Jaws of the World Wolf.

I will make sure to bring it up for the next update, but GW did rule on this power in their own FAQ and while their ruling isn't 100% clear since the power doesn't affect UNITS like Psychic Scream but rather MODELS and their ruling does seem to indicate that LOS is only needed for the first model hit by the line (insinuating that all other models touched by it are affected regardless of LOS), it would be highly unlikely IMHO for us to overrule this.

Implant Attack states "regardless of the opponent's Toughness" very explicitly in the ruling. It's safe to say that in the rare case of a model being unable to wound under normal circumstances, Implant Attack will override this. It's a moot point, as all models with Implant Attack come with built-in rending claws or are monstrous.

While the rending ability most certainly does allow a model to wound an enemy it would not normally be able to wound due to Toughness, the only thing that Implant Attack does is to grant the wound the ability to inflict instant death...a wound must still be successfully caused for instant death to be inflicted...or in other words, it appears that we disagree with your logic on this one.

Also, some Monstrous Creatures such as the Hive Tyrant only have a S6, which means it is possible they could be fighting against a creature with a T10, in which case the ruling we made is completely valid (in our opinion).

The venomthrope's spore cloud says that the 5+ cover save may be taken against any shooting attacks, so RAW would dictate that you may take these saves against flamers. I recommend you append "except those against which no cover saves may be taken" to the end of this.

Fair enough, I'll definitely get this corrected in the next update and you can safely assume if you're attending Adepticon that every judge will rule that weapons which ignore cover saves would ignore the Venomthrope's cover save as well.

There are often so many caveats when attempting to write an answer to a 40K question that it can be ridiculously easy to overlook what your answer is actually missing...and I even try to spend time thinking about how my answers can be interpreted and still sometimes I let stuff accidentally slip through, so I appreciate someone letting me know so I can fix it.

Please specify that models with wings only move as Jump Infantry and thus cannot Deep Strike.

We have ruled on this matter in the current INAT in the 'Jump Infantry' section of the rulebook FAQ and it is safe to say that we completely disagree with your logic. We believe that the rules do indicate that arriving via Deep Strike is a specialized form of movement and that the rules allowing Jump Infantry to Deep Strike are even located in the 'MOVEMENT' section of the Jump Infantry rules.

As such, any model which move as Jump Infantry are therefore allowed to Deep Strike much as GW ruled that any models which move as Jetbikes (Necron Scarabs and Destroyers) are able to Turbo-boost.

Finally, you should probably include that the Avatar of Khaine is not affected by the pyrovore's flamespurt.

Thanks! I'll definitely get that added in the next update.

TYR.51B.03 and TYR.58B.02 state that cover saves may be taken against Terror From The Deep and Spirit Leech.

The wording on the former states that a unit "suffers a number of S6, AP2 equal to the number of models [under the marker]" and the latter states that a unit "suffers a single wound for each point they failed by, no armor saves allowed."

I'd like to note that the same wording applies to the Tervigon's "Brood Progenitor" rule. The same wording is also used in the wording for the Deffrolla, and possibly a number of other non-shooting attacks in the game.

In other words, a battlewagon with a deffrolla attempts to run over a tervigon in range of a venomthrope. The tervigon takes 6 S10 hits, but gets cover saves from the venomthrope. It dies, and the termagant broods in range of it may take cover saves from the psychic backlash of their parent's death by being in woods. Alternatively, a unit may take cover saves from a vehicle's explosion while embarked on said vehicle. I'm not going to pull RAI on you, but it's looking rather silly.

I would specifically disallow cover from any attack unless it is a shooting weapon, Psychic Shooting Attack, or states specifically that it allows cover saves, because doing otherwise opens the door for potential abuses. Plus, it's not like being inside a vehicle won't completely protect you from the entire rest of the Tyranid army, anyway.

Okay, sorry for the long response to this one, but I feel like it is needed to explain our position.

The first thing to remember is that the rules for 40K only have the steps for converting a hit into a wound, a wound into a save and unsaved wounds into casualties in the normal steps for the shooting phase and partial rules in the Assault phase section (in that they refer back to the shooting phase rules in some places).

That means, by the pure RAW anytime a hit or wound is inflicted on a model by a special rule outside of these two normal processes, the rules do not tell us how to resolve it AT ALL.

Now, being smart people gamers tend to figure out that based on how GW has laid out the rulebook we are simply expected to understand that we default back to the 'core' rules for these processes (i.e. those laid out in the 'shooting phase' section) and so when a model takes a hit, it means we roll to wound based on the Strength of the hit and then we take an armor/invulnerable save (unless specified otherwise), and if the model doesn't save it loses a wound from its profile and it this takes it to 0 wounds, it is removed from play as a casualty.

But it is important to always remember that these are very common CONVENTIONS used by players in lieu of clear rules telling us how to resolve specialty hits or wounds (those caused outside of shooting or assaults).

So when we get to the areas of casualty removal and cover saves, how to play these types of specialty wounds starts to become really murky. If we're defaulting back to the main shooting rules for these processes, then are we always able to assign the wound to any model in the unit regardless of which model was hit? And when exactly can cover saves be taken? And if these questions have answers, where are those answers coming from since they aren't in the rules themselves?


Ultimately the problem is this: When it comes to these types of 'specialty attacks' GW has written its rules with context unfortunately in mind rather than consistency. In other words, they seem to expect players to read what context with which the rule takes place in and based on that, make a judgement on exactly which casualty rules to apply.

For example, while it might seem really easy to simply lay a ground rule that states 'any wounds caused outside of shooting attacks don't get cover saves', but the problem is there are attacks that occur outside of the shooting phase that are pretty clearly similar to a shooting attack that don't specify one way or another how to resolve them if you don't consider them a shooting attack. I'm talking about such things as Ork Big Bomms dropped by Deff Koptas, or the Swooping Hawk Grenade Pack.

If you don't play that these things are treated like shooting attacks, then all of a sudden you have a bunch of questions with no answers like: 'what armor value do they hit vehicles on?' and 'Can only the models hit by the blast be removed as casualties?', etc.


And then on the flip side you have things like the Tyranid Acid Blood and Toxic Miasma which state that no cover saves are allowed even though these attacks occur in the assault phase...so by comparison where does this leave the Mawloc's emergence attack blast...cover or no cover save?


And even worse for us writing the INAT is the fact that we aren't trying to write a FAQ to reinvent the wheel, in that we hope and try to find with rulings that already generally match how most people already play the game with the goal of making sure there are naturally as few rules arguments at the tournament as possible without even having to reference the FAQ.

And you can rest assured that there are a good chunk of players out there that expect cover saves to be taken against exploding vehicles, Mawloc emergence attacks, Swooping Hawk Grenade Packs, Ork Big Bomms, etc, etc, etc, unfortunately just as there are some who would expect not to get cover saves in these cases.

Our belief and hope is that currently the former outweigh the latter in which case we've made the right ruling.


But what this ultimately comes down to is the context from which the attack is generated. Players expect to take cover saves against a Swooping Hawk attack because the context of the attack is that it is a grenade attack, which only makes 'sense' to get a cover save against.

Whereas with the Tervigon, these wounds are inflicted psychically by a friendly creature as a penalty for it dying, so I think you'll find that naturally people would not expect to get cover saves against these wounds.


But unfortunately because GW has failed to create a base-standard for how non-shooting, non-assault hits/wounds are resolved, and worse they are incredibly inconsistent with when they clarify if a unit does or does not get a cove save against such attacks, we are left as players and the INAT council, making individual judgement calls against each specific rule.


Which is likely what we will continue to do unless GW comes out with something major as a guideline in one of their FAQs.

So if cover saves against Tervigon wounds become a legitimate question that people start really asking about then we'll rule on it in the INAT and likely rule against allowing cover saves simply because it is highly unlikely that a majority of players would expect to get cover saves in that situation.


Whew, that was long! Hopefully that clarified our position a bit on the matter even if it isn't the answer you were particularly looking for.

Thanks again for all your feedback!

yakface wrote:

airmang wrote:Are you going to make a judgement on "overkill" wounds causing more Acid Blood tests? and about being able to Deep Strike with a winged Tyrant?

And on a more general rules note: If a player gets bonuses for reserve rolls, can that cause units to come on automaticallly (before 5th turn)? example: +2 to reserve rolls = auto deploy on turn 3...

We will make a judgement on 'overkill' wounds, but not until we update the INAT again, which likely won't be until either GW releases their Tyranid FAQ or another codex. But you can safely assume that our ruling (and any judge at Adepticon) will rule that 'overkill' wounds do not count towards acid blood attacks...personally I think that's pretty much a safe blanket statement to make regarding any and all rules...if the wound isn't actually inflicted on a model (because you've killed them all) then those wounds don't count towards anything unless explicitly specified otherwise.

As for the Reserves question, again its something that definitely could be included in the next update and I'm 95% sure that we will rule with the RAW in this case in that there is no 'a 1 always fails' rule in place for Reserve rolls, so yes, you can have rolls that automatically succeed on a '1+' if you have modifiers on your Reserves rolls.

Finally, the ruling regarding the Deep Striking Hive Tyrant has already been made in the current INAT...check out the Jump Infantry section of the rulebook FAQ.


And thanks for the questions!

Hey, thanks for accepting my input. I appreciate the care being taken.


The wording for Acid Blood is identical to the wording for Feel No Pain. Thematically, this insinuates that you keep hacking the body apart and getting hit by the blood, whether it is alive or not. Are you going to introduce a similar overkill limit on Feel No Pain? How will that be handled? This is also should be a good time to point out that you can FNP a wound that has dealt Acid Blood damage to the opponent already according to the rules.


(Refer to page 26 for a description on the difference between a model "suffering" a wound and a model losing a wound from its profile. If there was no distinction, Feel No Pain wouldn't work in a mechanical sense.)


Also, re: cover saves-- The Swooping Hawk Grenade Pack has something in common with the Terror From The Deep and the Brood Progenitor which are not in common with Spirit Leech, that is, AP values (as opposed to denial of saves). A fair resolution would allow cover saves from all of the former due to their similarity to shooting attacks in this respect.

I think it was a poor decision for spirit leech to wound enemy models embarked in vehicles. This has never ever been the case before so why should it now? I think if it could then GW would have told us. This is one people are going to be complaining about a lot.

G

Redbeard wrote:
I'm very disappointed in this latest set of "clarifications". In the past, the INT has been very conservative with regard to the interpretation of questionable rules. Disallowing a lash sorcerer joined to a unit from moving the target prior to a flamer in that unit from working, disallowing deff rollas from affecting vehicles, and generally erring on the side of caution.

Every questionable ruling on the tyranids is the liberal interpretation, in favour of the tyranid army. How you can claim that it's balanced to allow a hive tyrant to claim a cover save when he and a guard stand behind a couple of gaunts, but it's unbalanced to let a deff rolla hit a vehicle is beyond me.

Yeah, I have to agree with this. It seems that they completely fell off the wagon with this one. This is one set of interrpretations on FAQ's I wouldnt use. Especially on the spirit leech one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yakface wrote:
Well, with Spirit Leech, the problem is that all units within range are affected, period. And the rules for embarked units clearly say that you measure to the vehicle's hull for things affecting embarked units. Now, GW went and ruled in their FAQ regarding psychic powers that they can't affect embarked units, but this WAS a rule change, and as written only applies to psychic powers.

So when you get to Spirit Leech, you have a (non-psychic power) special rule that affects all units within its range...there is absolutely no basis in the rules, or even in the fluff why this ability shouldn't affect embarked units. The only strike against is really that up until this point there hasn't really been anything in the game that is able to cause wounds against embarked units. But that alone doesn't mean it isn't what GW intended to happen.

So there were some voting that thought we should just step up and make a rule change disallowing Spirit Leech from affecting embarked units, but again, at the end of the day the rules DO seem to allow it, so really if GW doesn't want something like this from occurring they need to make the rules change themselves like they did with psychic powers affecting embarked units.

There is nothing in the rules that allow shooting attacks to effect emback units. You're effectively making up a new rule and new way of dealing with shooting attacks.

carmachu wrote:

Redbeard wrote:
I'm very disappointed in this latest set of "clarifications". In the past, the INT has been very conservative with regard to the interpretation of questionable rules. Disallowing a lash sorcerer joined to a unit from moving the target prior to a flamer in that unit from working, disallowing deff rollas from affecting vehicles, and generally erring on the side of caution.

Every questionable ruling on the tyranids is the liberal interpretation, in favour of the tyranid army. How you can claim that it's balanced to allow a hive tyrant to claim a cover save when he and a guard stand behind a couple of gaunts, but it's unbalanced to let a deff rolla hit a vehicle is beyond me.

Yeah, I have to agree with this. It seems that they completely fell off the wagon with this one. This is one set of interrpretations on FAQ's I wouldnt use. Especially on the spirit leech one.

It's kinda funny - simultaneously, many Tyranid players are bitching about the horrible rulings that prevent reserves bonuses from stacking/applying, and various other fun topics. If no one's happy, I think that means they did their job?

(The Hive Tyrant/Guard thing is an old issue, dating from the preceding codex. RAW is reasonably clear on that one - units can claim cover saves when 50%+ of the models in the unit have cover. The older versions of the INAT FAQ had the same ruling.)

carmachu wrote:There is nothing in the rules that allow shooting attacks to effect emback units. You're effectively making up a new rule and new way of dealing with shooting attacks.

Except it's not a shooting attack. It doesn't even follow the majority of the shooting attack rules.

HIWPI is a lot more popular now than RAW, which is funny because you would think RAW should curb abuse. Anyways I see that Hive Commander does not stack for reserves.

G


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Okay I have read it and it's not bad at all. I do think Hive Guard show ignore night fight rules... They are blind as a bat Jon.

G

carmachu wrote:
There is nothing in the rules that allow shooting attacks to effect emback units. You're effectively making up a new rule and new way of dealing with shooting attacks.

Again:

1) Spirit Leech is not a shooting attack. It is a special rule that automatically occurs at the start of the shooting phase.

2) Page 66 of the rulebook says: "If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle's hull." Which seems to me to pretty clear detail that when something could potentially affect an embarked unit, you simply measure to the vehicle's hull to see if the unit is in range.


So from my reading, there is nothing in the rules preventing Spirit Leech from affecting embarked models. It is not a psychic power (which GW has disallowed from being used on embarked models) and it is not a shooting attack (which we have disallowed), so if we were to disallow Spirit Leech to not affect embarked models I do think we would most certainly be changing what the rules seem to indicate.

Inquisitor_Malice wrote:I can say this -

1) I am on the INAT team.
2) I do not actively play nids. I have some genestealers and the like, but have no interest in playing nids.
3) I am more than comfortable with all the rulings that were made with the INAT.

Alex - if we operated with the degree of transparency that people such as yourself desire, we would grind ourselves into the ground. I can say that the INAT staff is stretched to our limits. Not only do we diligently work to provide a quality document that the community can use if they choose, but also put on one of the highest quality shows (AdeptiCon) that the world has seen. This all along with balancing our personal and professional lives without any true benefit beyond the knowledge that we are hopefully helping community members remove potential arguments during game play and increase the chances of having a fun time.

The INAT team has no desire for person gain from our work. All of the professionals that I work with on this team are above such pettiness. The desire for personal gain would compromise the integrity of the document itself and for what? Personal glory in miniature games. We all have far better things to do with our time.

QFT in terms of applying it to myself and my feelings as well. Though my Nid collection is even more lacking then his.

It seems the spirit leech ruling opens a huge can of worms. Can Najal's Storm effects now hit embarked units? What about the Vibro Cannon? Those are just two that come to mind.

I understand why you guys made the choice, but it seems that it will cause more problems than it fixes.

We're talking about a passive special rule that affects embarked models, just like psychic hoods, straken's leadership aura, and so on.

It seems that you people really want your impenetrable metal boxes to be magical god mode containers for your models.

carmachu wrote:There is nothing in the rules that allow shooting attacks to effect emback units. You're effectively making up a new rule and new way of dealing with shooting attacks.

Oh, not so much. You can fire flamers at units embarked in buildings. That's very similar to this.

Broken Loose wrote:We're talking about a passive special rule that affects embarked models, just like psychic hoods, straken's leadership aura, and so on.

It seems that you people really want your impenetrable metal boxes to be magical god mode containers for your models..

oh contrare; it seems that YOU people are bound and determined to break every new army book that comes out. Geez, just play the game and try, I know it's hard, to have some fun instead of just attempting to find a way to win in 1 turn or make it where no one wants to play against you.


Not all of us can take a plethora of 6T 6W monstrous creatures so we have to have some way to protect our squishy scoring units.

R3con wrote:It seems the spirit leech ruling opens a huge can of worms. Can Najal's Storm effects now hit embarked units? What about the Vibro Cannon? Those are just two that come to mind.

I understand why you guys made the choice, but it seems that it will cause more problems than it fixes.

Njal's special rules specifically require line of sight to affect enemy models (the rule is over on the left hand column of his rules).

The Vibro-cannon is a shooting attack and we've already ruled that shooting at embarked units is not allowed.



This is honestly something NEW that GW hasn't done before, IMHO, but that doesn't necessarily mean they didn't intend for it to do something fairly unique. Only they can answer the intent question via their own FAQ.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

agnosto wrote:
oh contrare; it seems that YOU people are bound and determined to break every new army book that comes out. Geez, just play the game and try, I know it's hard, to have some fun instead of just attempting to find a way to win in 1 turn or make it where no one wants to play against you.


Not all of us can take a plethora of 6T 6W monstrous creatures so we have to have some way to protect our squishy scoring units.

Honestly, that's what we're trying accomplish. The thing is, with this particular case either way we ruled there would be a large percentage of gamers unhappy with the ruling in all likelihood. But since Tyranid Pods don't arrive until at least turn 2 and given that embarked units get cover saves against Spirit Leech wounds honestly this is far from a game-breaking unit.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Green Blow Fly wrote:
Okay I have read it and it's not bad at all. I do think Hive Guard show ignore night fight rules... They are blind as a bat Jon.

G

Well, in the rules LOS has nothing to do with spotting distance and it would be ridiculous to rule one way on the Hive Guard and not the same way on other units which have weapons that don't require LOS (like Tau Smart Missile systems, for example).

If you need a fluff idea to wrap your head around just imagine that while the Hive Guard don't need LOS, their little living ammo that flies around terrain is affected by a lack of light and gets confused the further it has to fly at night.

Redbeard wrote:Since you're in an explaining mode, how is it that Mawlocs (and I noticed you all went back and added this to other sections, such as the monolith, as well) are allowed to deep strike without placing the model on the table, as the rules on page 95 clearly state?

I'm very disappointed in this latest set of "clarifications". In the past, the INT has been very conservative with regard to the interpretation of questionable rules. Disallowing a lash sorcerer joined to a unit from moving the target prior to a flamer in that unit from working, disallowing deff rollas from affecting vehicles, and generally erring on the side of caution.

Every questionable ruling on the tyranids is the liberal interpretation, in favour of the tyranid army. How you can claim that it's balanced to allow a hive tyrant to claim a cover save when he and a guard stand behind a couple of gaunts, but it's unbalanced to let a deff rolla hit a vehicle is beyond me.

I am with you on this, in regards to being able to target units with deepstrike. I've gotten six calls from players asking about this for upcoming tournaments. 3 mawlocs popping in on a 2+ on turn 2 seems to be the idea, along with surrounding vehicles with lictors so units can't move and are destroyed.

Really, really disagree with this.

mikhaila wrote:3 mawlocs popping in on a 2+ on turn 2 seems to be the idea, along with surrounding vehicles with lictors so units can't move and are destroyed.

It will still work even if you play it that mawlocs cannot target units to deep strike into. The odds of success are much lower without being able to target units, but the basic concept of destroying units that cannot move out of the way works.

I don't see why this is such a huge deal. The mawloc has a 33% chance of hitting where it wants whether you let it aim for a unit or not. The other 66% of the time he scatters and has no rule for reducing his scatter like a drop pod or even a trygon so he'll average a 7" scatter somewhere. He still mishaps if he hits impassable terrain just like everyone else.

mikhaila wrote:

I am with you on this, in regards to being able to target units with deepstrike. I've gotten six calls from players asking about this for upcoming tournaments. 3 mawlocs popping in on a 2+ on turn 2 seems to be the idea, along with surrounding vehicles with lictors so units can't move and are destroyed.

Really, really disagree with this.

I feel what you're saying but I'm really confident that if GW rules on the matter that they'll back up what we've ruled exactly the same way. The only time they ruled on the subject before was with Spore Mines and they did rule that they were allowed to Deep Strike onto enemy models so I don't see why they'll suddenly change that idea for a unit that does essentially the same thing (i.e. wants to Deep Strike onto things).

And please remember, if you're using the INAT, then the only way players are getting a 2+ Reserves roll on turn 2 is if they have both the Swarmlord and a Hive Tyrant with 'Hive Commander' on the table at the start of the game (i.e. not in Reserves themselves), which is quite a few points to have on the table to 'unlock' this combo.

While it is possible to use Lictors to box in units to a degree, the models can move in any direction in order to escape the Mawloc's attack, so as long as the opponent leaves a bit of space between his units the Tyranid player will likely have to get all 3 units of Lictors in on the same turn in order to pull it all off. And if the Mawloc scatters (2/3 of the time), he could easily end up eating some of the Lictors instead!

But regardless of the potential for combo, the fact comes back to if you read the rules and fluff for the Mawloc and compare his points cost to that of the Trygon, IMHO it is really abundantly clear that GW intends for the emergence attack to be able to target whatever spot the Tyranid player wants.

Frankly, I'll be a little surprised if GW even FAQs this question as it seems like the kind of thing they think is 'obvious' to the casual player but if they do I'll be even more shocked if they rule the way you're suggesting (although I've been that shocked before, so it wouldn't be the first time).

mikhaila wrote:

Redbeard wrote:Since you're in an explaining mode, how is it that Mawlocs (and I noticed you all went back and added this to other sections, such as the monolith, as well) are allowed to deep strike without placing the model on the table, as the rules on page 95 clearly state?

I'm very disappointed in this latest set of "clarifications". In the past, the INT has been very conservative with regard to the interpretation of questionable rules. Disallowing a lash sorcerer joined to a unit from moving the target prior to a flamer in that unit from working, disallowing deff rollas from affecting vehicles, and generally erring on the side of caution.

Every questionable ruling on the tyranids is the liberal interpretation, in favour of the tyranid army. How you can claim that it's balanced to allow a hive tyrant to claim a cover save when he and a guard stand behind a couple of gaunts, but it's unbalanced to let a deff rolla hit a vehicle is beyond me.

I am with you on this, in regards to being able to target units with deepstrike. I've gotten six calls from players asking about this for upcoming tournaments. 3 mawlocs popping in on a 2+ on turn 2 seems to be the idea, along with surrounding vehicles with lictors so units can't move and are destroyed.

Really, really disagree with this.

So, against that list...don't have your troops in the vehicle?

The Mawloc displaces any unit it touches. If you put a few of your own models around the vehicle, it cannot possibly hit the vehicle but not the troops. The rest of the unit just needs to cover enough space that Lictors are inconvenienced trying to prevent the displaced units from sliding. Add in the improbability of a direct hit with the Mawloc, and this goes from "SCARY!" to "gimmick." But yes - you do have to deploy differently for different opponents.

(And if they've got 3 Mawlocs, and that many lictors, and a Hive Tyrant for the other +1...that's most of their army right there. And none of it has any meaningful guns.)

Not to mention that the Tyranid player is basically relying on a S6 pie plate fired at ballistic skill ZERO.

agnosto wrote:

Broken Loose wrote:We're talking about a passive special rule that affects embarked models, just like psychic hoods, straken's leadership aura, and so on.

It seems that you people really want your impenetrable metal boxes to be magical god mode containers for your models..

oh contrare; it seems that YOU people are bound and determined to break every new army book that comes out. Geez, just play the game and try, I know it's hard, to have some fun instead of just attempting to find a way to win in 1 turn or make it where no one wants to play against you.


Not all of us can take a plethora of 6T 6W monstrous creatures so we have to have some way to protect our squishy scoring units.

"You people?" What's that supposed to mean?

Considering each of these 6T 6W MCs can be taken down by lasgun fire (impossible to do to vehicles) and with a single exception aren't scoring, I dare say the person complaining that their super special librarian hooding out my entire army from inside a land raider is entirely invincible is the one being cheesy. Not to mention that each of your units has a plethora of weapon choices capable of taking down these units with ease (meltas, plasmas, missiles) whereas I have to dedicate a maximum of 6 choices in my army to the job-- 5 if I'm taking the Doom, and that's not even accounting for the fact that the heavy support choices for taking out said vehicles are in the range of 265 points or more. Certainly you can avoid a single T4 creature with a 5+/3++ save and without an immunity to instant death? Or perhaps you'd like to be on the receiving end of a Lone Wolf, who you effectively have to avoid for the same purpose, as he kills your dudes while also bending the rules in such a way as to be quite possibly unfair. Killing a LW hurts your army and actively reduces your chance to win missions. Should we ban those?

I'll tell you what. I can pull random army lists out of random threads and find easily double to triple the number of vehicles in those lists as one could physically field 666 MCs in a Tyranids 5 army, much less a plethora of them. Well, you just told me that I had a plethora, and I would just like to know if you know what it means to have a plethora. I would not like to think that someone would tell someone else he has a plethora, and then find out that that person has no idea what it means to have a plethora.

We're not talking about game balance. We're talking about a bunch of people who are holding "block" in Street Fighter 2 and complaining when the opponent throws them. There's no way the Doom will kill you on turn 1, and there's no way he alone will kill you on turn 2 or 3. It's a single model unit that takes up a possible anti-tank slot in an army absolutely desperate for anti-tank weapons, whose purpose is to be anti-infantry in an army bleeding anti-infantry weapons out the ass. Not only that, but by stating that I'M a bad person for not liking to lose while complaining about how a certain unit will make you lose makes you incredibly hypocritical. You should be ashamed of yourself.

yakface wrote:
So from my reading, there is nothing in the rules preventing Spirit Leech from affecting embarked models. It is not a psychic power (which GW has disallowed from being used on embarked models) and it is not a shooting attack (which we have disallowed), so if we were to disallow Spirit Leech to not affect embarked models I do think we would most certainly be changing what the rules seem to indicate.

So?

The first iteration of the INAT FAQ had to contend with the Lash question. A rule that, in my opinion, was written quite clearly, and that the GW FAQ confirmed to work that way. It did something that nothing in the game had done before. And, for the sake of not having Adepticon break out in fist-fights (I think that was the justification), the INAT council took it upon themselves to change how that power worked, nerfing it.

That's been the precedent for how the council works. Yes, you change rules. There are any number of places in the FAQ labelled as rules changes. Because, in the absence of any very specific rule saying you can do something that hasn't been done before, it's a good idea to err on the side of "no you can't". Only, not for nids.

There are powers in the game that you've rule changes with this last edition. Aura of Decay may be a shooting attack, but the power clearly states that it affects "all enemy models within 6" of the daemon". Last time I checked, specific rules from codexes trumped general rules (requiring line of sight) from the rulebook. I don't know how much clearer a rule can be that says, "all enemy models within 6" of the daemon", but you rule changed this to protect models that aren't within line-of-sight. And this isn't even a big deal, oooh a S2 hit with no AP.

Yet on powers that could potentially have a large impact on games at Adepticon (mawlocs and doom, specifically), sure, let them do whatever they want. It's not even a question of whether there would be rules changes or not. Who cares. The INAT team has shown willingness to make rules changes for a better balanced game, or for a better Adepticon. The question is why did the nids get the beneficial rulings, while other armies are getting already weak powers further nerfed.

Janthkin wrote:
Except it's not a shooting attack. It doesn't even follow the majority of the shooting attack rules.

Irrelevant. There is NO precedent for allowing anything to harm models in transports while the transport is intact. None. In any edition. Not in 4th, not in 3rd, Not in 5th.

Thats an absolutely bad ruling.

Perils of the Warp.


Flamers used on units embarked in buildings.


Overheating plasma guns, pistols, and cannons.


Let's see what else I can think of in the next 30 seconds.

Broken Loose wrote:Not to mention that the Tyranid player is basically relying on a S6 pie plate fired at ballistic skill ZERO.

agnosto wrote:

Broken Loose wrote:We're talking about a passive special rule that affects embarked models, just like psychic hoods, straken's leadership aura, and so on.

It seems that you people really want your impenetrable metal boxes to be magical god mode containers for your models..

oh contrare; it seems that YOU people are bound and determined to break every new army book that comes out. Geez, just play the game and try, I know it's hard, to have some fun instead of just attempting to find a way to win in 1 turn or make it where no one wants to play against you.


Not all of us can take a plethora of 6T 6W monstrous creatures so we have to have some way to protect our squishy scoring units.

"You people?" What's that supposed to mean?

Considering each of these 6T 6W MCs can be taken down by lasgun fire (impossible to do to vehicles) and with a single exception aren't scoring, I dare say the person complaining that their super special librarian hooding out my entire army from inside a land raider is entirely invincible is the one being cheesy. Not to mention that each of your units has a plethora of weapon choices capable of taking down these units with ease (meltas, plasmas, missiles) whereas I have to dedicate a maximum of 6 choices in my army to the job-- 5 if I'm taking the Doom, and that's not even accounting for the fact that the heavy support choices for taking out said vehicles are in the range of 265 points or more. Certainly you can avoid a single T4 creature with a 5+/3++ save and without an immunity to instant death? Or perhaps you'd like to be on the receiving end of a Lone Wolf, who you effectively have to avoid for the same purpose, as he kills your dudes while also bending the rules in such a way as to be quite possibly unfair. Killing a LW hurts your army and actively reduces your chance to win missions. Should we ban those?

I'll tell you what. I can pull random army lists out of random threads and find easily double to triple the number of vehicles in those lists as one could physically field 666 MCs in a Tyranids 5 army, much less a plethora of them. Well, you just told me that I had a plethora, and I would just like to know if you know what it means to have a plethora. I would not like to think that someone would tell someone else he has a plethora, and then find out that that person has no idea what it means to have a plethora.

We're not talking about game balance. We're talking about a bunch of people who are holding "block" in Street Fighter 2 and complaining when the opponent throws them. There's no way the Doom will kill you on turn 1, and there's no way he alone will kill you on turn 2 or 3. It's a single model unit that takes up a possible anti-tank slot in an army absolutely desperate for anti-tank weapons, whose purpose is to be anti-infantry in an army bleeding anti-infantry weapons out the ass. Not only that, but by stating that I'M a bad person for not liking to lose while complaining about how a certain unit will make you lose makes you incredibly hypocritical. You should be ashamed of yourself.

At risk of sounding childish, you in fact started the whole "you people" train.

I play tau; I have none of the beardy nonsense you're talking about. Sure I have railguns but it would take me an entire round of shooting to possibly down 1 carnifex, not to mention a whole unit of 3. Turn 2 the mawlocs come in and kill my transports and tanks because they all have rear armor 10. Yay for me, the models I've spent hours and hours painting are on the field for all of 15 minutes. Leadership 7 means doom kills off any firewarriors or kroot I've got hiding in woods or buildings (more like cringing). With 9 or more monstrous creatures coming at me across the field, there's no way I can support enough fire to down them before they wipe out my entire army and this beardy nonsense with giving powers that wipe out models based upon leadership is just icing on the cake for my army.

So no, I'm not ashamed of myself because the only thing my tau will be good at when playing the new nids is dying and I never said you, or anyone, is a bad person. I stated that it's a game, we should be trying to have fun not take away our opponents' fun. I see people at my FLGS that nobody wants to play against because there's no point. I mean would you want to play when you know for a fact that there's no chance you'll win? I don't. Heck, I'm not a good player but I love my tau, weak as they are, and play nearly every week because for me it's a fun game and I enjoy the time with friends.

I loved the three amigos quote by the way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Broken Loose wrote:Perils of the Warp.


Flamers used on units embarked in buildings.


Overheating plasma guns, pistols, and cannons.


Let's see what else I can think of in the next 30 seconds.

He clearly stated transports, not buildings so flamers are obviously out.

your other choices are things you do to yourself not what you opponent does to you.

Well, pass your leadership test and you won't hurt yourself.

Janthkin wrote:
It's kinda funny - simultaneously, many Tyranid players are bitching about the horrible rulings that prevent reserves bonuses from stacking/applying, and various other fun topics. If no one's happy, I think that means they did their job?

You're kidding, right? The reserve thing is identical to GW FAQ for the identically worded guard advisor bonus.

Other than that, what horrible rulings for tyranids?

Let's see, ignoring "what happens" type questions, we get:

Does Shadow of the Warp hit embarked psykers - yes
If there is no area terrain, can a lurking unit move to other terrain to get a save? - yes
Do two tyrants let you outflank two units - yes
Can you stack a lictor's reserve bonus with a tyrants - yes
Does the Old Adversary rule grant preferred enemy everything - yes
Can a tyrant leave a unit of guard - yes
Do the guard work like a retinue in assault though - yes
Can a tyrant with guard get a cover save from hiding behind gaunts - yes
Do tyrant guard get blind rampage from the swarmlord - yes
Can Blinding Venom hurt enemies too tough for gargoyles to wound - yes
Can different zoanthropes use different powers - yes
Spore mines ignored as Kill points/victory points - yes
Do assault spore mines get to have as many models in contact with them as possible before they explode? - yes
Can spore mines deep strike ontop of enemy models - yes
Do exploding pyrovore hits count for combat resolution - yes
Can a Mawloc deep strike on top of an enemy model - yes
Can a mawloc move an immobile object - yes
Can a mycetic spore shoot when it arrives - yes
Can IC's join a unit with a spore - yes
Can you drop empty mycetic spores - yes
Can swarmlord grant himself powers - yes
Does swarmlord's preferred enemy hit every possible enemy - yes
Can swarmlord's Alien Cunning stack with a lictor or hive tyrant - yes
Does Doom count as a zoanthrope for getting a 3+ inv save - yes
Can Spirit Leech hit units in vehicles - yes
Can Doom gain wounds from models dying when a vehicle explodes - yes
Does Deathleaper's "It's after me" overrule - stubborn - yes
Does Deathleaper's "It's after me" get passed on, by units that do that - yes
Does Deathleaper's "It's after me" work when he's in reserve - yes
Can Deathleaper render a unit completely unable to move - yes
Do tyranid close-combat weapon effects stack - yes
Do lash whips trump positive initiative modifiers - yes

Can you stack tyrant reserve bonuses - no*
Can your commander get his bonus if he's not on the table - no*
Can you stack lictor reserve bonuses - no*
Can swarmlord's reserve rules be used if he's in reserve - no*

These four all directly correspond to GW's rulings on guard advisors though. And you can stack a lictor's bonus with a tyrants...

Can raveners climb stairs - no**
Can tyrant guard ignore night-fight - no**
Can swarmlord use the same power twice - no**
When a unit of lictors are placed, can they avoid unit coherency rules - no**
Does swarmlord get an invul save against shooting - no**

I think those ones fall under wishful thinking...


So, what rulings actually went 'against' the Tyranids:

A few that say other armies get cover saves against tyranid attacks:
Do Mawlocs ignore cover when arriving- no
Does spirit leech ignore cover - no
Can an impaler cannon ignore cover-granting effects - no

One that says that a tyrant who can leave his retinue has to be worth a separate KP:
Are the guard and the tyrant worth only one kill point - no

One that says that you can't deliberately allocate wounds to the tyrant for the purpose of getting furious charge on the guard in the same phase:
Can tyrant guard retroactively get furious charge if the tyrant dies - no

And one that mirrors the rulings for other "all models in a range" shooting powers (like Aura of Decay):
Can Psychic Scream ignore LOS restrictions - no


Even counting the "wishful thinking" rulings (like raveners being able to not be beasts for purposes of entering upper levels of ruins), the pro-tyranid outnumber the 'rulings against' by more than 2 to 1. And all of the rulings with the potential for real game-breaking effects went in favour of the tyranids. If you take out the rulings that directly mimic GW's IG FAQ, and the wishful thinking ones, the overall tally is more like 6-1 in favour of pro-nid rulings.

Any tyranid player complaining about this set of rulings isn't thinking straight.

Redbeard wrote:

Let's see, ignoring "what happens" type questions, we get:

Does Shadow of the Warp hit embarked psykers - yes
If there is no area terrain, can a lurking unit move to other terrain to get a save? - yes
Do two tyrants let you outflank two units - yes
Can you stack a lictor's reserve bonus with a tyrants - yes
Does the Old Adversary rule grant preferred enemy everything - yes
Can a tyrant leave a unit of guard - yes
Do the guard work like a retinue in assault though - yes
Can a tyrant with guard get a cover save from hiding behind gaunts - yes
Do tyrant guard get blind rampage from the swarmlord - yes
Can Blinding Venom hurt enemies too tough for gargoyles to wound - yes
Can different zoanthropes use different powers - yes
Spore mines ignored as Kill points/victory points - yes
Do assault spore mines get to have as many models in contact with them as possible before they explode? - yes
Can spore mines deep strike ontop of enemy models - yes
Do exploding pyrovore hits count for combat resolution - yes
Can a Mawloc deep strike on top of an enemy model - yes
Can a mawloc move an immobile object - yes
Can a mycetic spore shoot when it arrives - yes
Can IC's join a unit with a spore - yes
Can you drop empty mycetic spores - yes
Can swarmlord grant himself powers - yes
Does swarmlord's preferred enemy hit every possible enemy - yes
Can swarmlord's Alien Cunning stack with a lictor or hive tyrant - yes
Does Doom count as a zoanthrope for getting a 3+ inv save - yes
Can Spirit Leech hit units in vehicles - yes
Can Doom gain wounds from models dying when a vehicle explodes - yes
Does Deathleaper's "It's after me" overrule - stubborn - yes
Does Deathleaper's "It's after me" get passed on, by units that do that - yes
Does Deathleaper's "It's after me" work when he's in reserve - yes
Can Deathleaper render a unit completely unable to move - yes
Do tyranid close-combat weapon effects stack - yes
Do lash whips trump positive initiative modifiers - yes

Which of those do think are actually wrong? The only ones I think are even questionable are the lurkings nids going to non-area terrain, the tyrant guard as retinue and how the spore mines work when assaulted. The rest seem to be simple RAW to me.

If you take out the rulings that directly mimic GW's IG FAQ, and the wishful thinking ones, the overall tally is more like 6-1 in favour of pro-nid rulings.

Any tyranid player complaining about this set of rulings isn't thinking straight.

So you're assuming that all of these questions have an equal impact on the game, and that simply by virtue of having a positive answer these questions somehow unbalance the game in favor of the nids?

yakface wrote:

mikhaila wrote:

I am with you on this, in regards to being able to target units with deepstrike. I've gotten six calls from players asking about this for upcoming tournaments. 3 mawlocs popping in on a 2+ on turn 2 seems to be the idea, along with surrounding vehicles with lictors so units can't move and are destroyed.

Really, really disagree with this.

That does essentially the same thing (i.e. wants to Deep Strike onto things).

And please remember, if you're using the INAT, then the only way players are getting a 2+ Reserves roll on turn 2 is if they have both the Swarmlord and a Hive Tyrant with 'Hive Commander' on the table at the start of the game (i.e. not in Reserves themselves), which is quite a few points to have on the table to 'unlock' this combo.

While it is possible to use Lictors to box in units to a degree, the models can move in any direction in order to escape the Mawloc's attack, so as long as the opponent leaves a bit of space between his units the Tyranid player will likely have to get all 3 units of Lictors in on the same turn in order to pull it all off. And if the Mawloc scatters (2/3 of the time), he could easily end up eating some of the Lictors instead!

In defense of that tactic/Mikhaila, you could do this rather easily with a pod assault Nid army.

Start the Mawlocs on the board, first turn burrow (Guaranteed second turn attack)
Say 6ish pods in your army, should get at least 3
2 Lictor broods, should get at least 1


Really, if you were to play a Pod assault army I don't see why you shouldn't attempt something like this. 3 attempts at a hit should yield you one and if that's a Land Raider full of Thunder Terms + Vulkan.....ouch. Again though, this is situational/risky.

Ah, Yakface's "interpretation" of how the rules work is always a good read. Always makes me laugh.

I love how the rulings continually contradict themselves or established rules in the BRB.

Oh, well. Makes me happy I didn't buy an adepticon ticket, as if I had went, I would have wanted to play 40k...

CptZach wrote:Ah, Yakface's "interpretation" of how the rules work is always a good read. Always makes me laugh.

I love how the rulings continually contradict themselves or established rules in the BRB.

Oh, well. Makes me happy I didn't buy an adepticon ticket, as if I had went, I would have wanted to play 40k...

The Adepticon council is a group of players whom do this outside of their personal/professional lives with no financial incentive. They do this to increase players enjoyment of the game at the Con and help make the event run smoothly.

Now, while I may or may not agree with each individual ruling I certainly don't consider this as allowance to be rude (We are after all, discussing a game regarding toy soldiers). They always attempt to answer any concerns players may have and are transparent with the online community regarding their reasons.

i'm kind of surprised by spore mines cant assault since they are infantry which are allowed to assault, and nothing in any rule anywhere i could find says they couldnt.
though not "moving" in the movement phase because they have a mandatory movement requirement i'm fine with.


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

Arschbombe wrote:

If you take out the rulings that directly mimic GW's IG FAQ, and the wishful thinking ones, the overall tally is more like 6-1 in favour of pro-nid rulings.

Any tyranid player complaining about this set of rulings isn't thinking straight.

So you're assuming that all of these questions have an equal impact on the game, and that simply by virtue of having a positive answer these questions somehow unbalance the game in favor of the nids?

That's right. Because we're not thinking straight. Clearly the Doom was intended to be something used against mech armies, and the various alternative deployment options weren't intended to be good or useful against the same or otherwise.

And that is my way of saying I'd trade many of these "positive rulings" for some positive rulings around reserves, because neutered alternative deployment has many implications for Tyranids in the current metagame. But it is what it is. Hopefully GW will get us a good FAQ in a timely fashion like they did with SW.

Arschbombe wrote:
Which of those do think are actually wrong? The only ones I think are even questionable are the lurkings nids going to non-area terrain, the tyrant guard as retinue and how the spore mines work when assaulted. The rest seem to be simple RAW to me.

Which ones do I think are questionable:

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

There's no reason for this. If there's no area terrain, sitting where you are is just as supported by RAW.

Can a tyrant leave a unit of guard - yes

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

Can Spirit Leech hit units in vehicles - yes

Nothing in the rules has ever allowed this.

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

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


Does Deathleaper's "It's after me" overrule - stubborn - yes

Why? Setting a trait to a value is modifying that trait just as much as applying a +1 or a -1. This is a modifier, and stubborn units ignore modifiers.


Can Deathleaper render a unit completely unable to move - yes

I don't think there is a unit in the game that only rolls 1d6 for movement distance, so this is probably academic, but RAW, Deathleaper's rule even says, "to a minimum of one".


Do tyranid close-combat weapon effects stack - yes

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

Do lash whips trump positive initiative modifiers - yes

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

So you're assuming that all of these questions have an equal impact on the game, and that simply by virtue of having a positive answer these questions somehow unbalance the game in favor of the nids?

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

Oh god... this reminds me of the game I played in 3rd Ed with my nids vs a Blood Angels Mech army.

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

I was aiming for his tank and put it on the Rhino and he called a judge over, the spore mine was not "ON THE TABLE".

Spineless Judge said, "um, yep thats what the codex says". I just left the game after that.

This is what happens when people are TOO literal, there is no easy way to say you can place the spore mine anywhere you want to, GW would have to list ever piece and type of terrain and model etc... That could be a paragraph or two just by itself.

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

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

Do we know for a fact the council does not financially benefit from Adepticon?

G

AgeOfEgos wrote:

CptZach wrote:Ah, Yakface's "interpretation" of how the rules work is always a good read. Always makes me laugh.

I love how the rulings continually contradict themselves or established rules in the BRB.

Oh, well. Makes me happy I didn't buy an adepticon ticket, as if I had went, I would have wanted to play 40k...

The Adepticon council is a group of players whom do this outside of their personal/professional lives with no financial incentive. They do this to increase players enjoyment of the game at the Con and help make the event run smoothly.

Now, while I may or may not agree with each individual ruling I certainly don't consider this as allowance to be rude (We are after all, discussing a game regarding toy soldiers). They always attempt to answer any concerns players may have and are transparent with the online community regarding their reasons.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
the forgeworld spore mines were extremely controversial that year.

G

Chapterhouse wrote:Oh god... this reminds me of the game I played in 3rd Ed with my nids vs a Blood Angels Mech army.

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

I was aiming for his tank and put it on the Rhino and he called a judge over, the spore mine was not "ON THE TABLE".

Spineless Judge said, "um, yep thats what the codex says". I just left the game after that.

This is what happens when people are TOO literal, there is no easy way to say you can place the spore mine anywhere you want to, GW would have to list ever piece and type of terrain and model etc... That could be a paragraph or two just by itself.

Green Blow Fly wrote:
Do we know for a fact the council does not financially benefit from Adepticon?

G

Without seeing their books, no =p. Greg pretty much stated as much in this thread "without any true benefit beyond the knowledge that we are hopefully helping community members remove potential arguments during game play and increase the chances of having a fun time." I'm assuming that includes financial gain.

Well Greenie .. as with any volunteer at AdeptiCon they get a badge maybe depending on what else they are involved with an event ticket. I am sure that figures out to be about 25 cents an hour for most the guys. Less for Yakface...

I'm sure it's well worth it for the amount of abuse that they are then subject to by segements of the community.

Do we know for a fact the council does not financially benefit from Adepticon?

Adepticon is set up as a NFP. They do not financially benefit.

muwhe wrote:Well Greenie .. as with any volunteer at AdeptiCon they get a badge maybe depending on what else they are involved with an event ticket. I am sure that figures out to be about 25 cents an hour for most the guys.

I'm sure it's well worth it for the amount of abuse that they are then subject to by segements of the community.

Don't forget the free ticket to the after-con poker tournament, Hank!

*sigh*

It doesn't get said enough, but thank you again for running the best convention I've ever had the opportunity to attend. The FAQ helps the 800+ games of 40k that are played over the 3 major tournaments to run more smoothly, and that's an incredible thing.

Does Deathleaper's "It's after me" overrule - stubborn - yes

Why? Setting a trait to a value is modifying that trait just as much as applying a +1 or a -1. This is a modifier, and stubborn units ignore modifiers.

Stubborn only works when Morale Checks are needed.

I'm not 100% in agreement with all the Nid rulings, and I think Redbeard makes some useful points, which may be worth consideration later this year, the next time the council guys can get to reviewing them.

That said, the INAT remains the best, most useful, and most comprehensive FAQ in the world. It has helped make my Adepticon experiences the past two years smoother and more fun.

Thanks again to Hank and to all the volunteers on the council. It’s an absolutely class act, and it’s no accident that this is one of the premier wargaming events in the world.

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

G

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

G

Janthkin wrote:

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

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

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

Chapterhouse wrote:

Janthkin wrote:

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

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

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

Nope; none of them are Psychic Shooting Attacks.

Redbeard wrote:
Which ones do I think are questionable:

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

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

Can a tyrant leave a unit of guard - yes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can Spirit Leech hit units in vehicles - yes

Nothing in the rules has ever allowed this.

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

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

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

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

Do tyranid close-combat weapon effects stack - yes

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

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

Do lash whips trump positive initiative modifiers - yes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I see your INAT FAQ and raise one GWAR FAQ.

Redbeard wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Chapterhouse wrote:

Janthkin wrote:

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

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

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

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

Redbeard wrote:

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

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

QFT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

G

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

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

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

Can anybody help me out?

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

G

No, "want" is the wrong word.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the document.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shep wrote:Thanks for the document.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obviously not Yak but I remember this from the FAQ;

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

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

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

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

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

Can anybody help me out?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shep wrote:Thanks for the document.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carry on.

G

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


CORRECTIONS TO THE INAT FAQ v3.2

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ahh, thanks!

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

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

Thanks for the reply!

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

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

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

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


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


Sorry!

Hi,
Regarding question RB.63F.01:
Q: If a unit is fighting a multiple combat against a (non-walker) vehicle and another non-vehicle enemy unit and the combat is drawn, can the unit pile-in towards the vehicle?
A: No, in this case the unit would have to pile-in towards the enemy non-vehicle unit and (if possible) move at least 1” away from the vehicle [RAW].

I checked the rule and it never states that you have to move away from the vehicle. It does say that models not in contact with an enemy have to pile in, but it does not state that the enemy has to be locked in combat.
RAW does forbid you from piling in towards an enemy non walker vehicle because it is not involved in the assault (grey area here) but you do not have to keep an inch from it (you pile in as in assault, not as in movement). And certainly you do NOT get to move the models touching the vehicle, not even if you want to as you can only move the models not in contact with an enemy.
So i guess that if you want to keep the ruling you have to change it's status to Rules Change or change the answer in the part regarding the 1" gap.

And btw, even although i do not share some of the rullings, thanks for the work done I hope to be able to give useful feedback

Agalavis -

You may have missed the sentence "In a multiple fight including enemy vehicles and other unit types, the result of the fight is worked out as normal against the latter, ignoring the vehicles." - page 63, 2nd column, 1st paragraph, last sentence.

Pile-in moves are made per the standard rules for a pile-in since the vehicles are ignored. It is complete RAW.

No, I see what Agalavis is saying,

Although the rules are clear that you may not consolidate into contact with enemy models that you are not fighting with (which is the case with the vehicle) but doesn't actually specify that you have to move an inch away. Technically as long as the models aren't contacting the vehicle (even a fraction of an inch away) they would be following this rule.

So we should probably change this to a 'clarification' in the next update.

+TYR.48E.01 – Q: Can a Spore Mine Cluster attempt
to Deep Strike directly over an enemy unit?
A: Yes it may [clarification].

Erm, the Spore Mine Cluster Deep Strikes into play before deployment, how could an enemy unit be around for it to Deep Strike on top of?

Please review IG.96A.01 : Can individual units from a Platoon be held in Reserves while others deploy normally?

Yes is correct, however the rest of your answer is not correct. The BRB clearly states that UNITS are rolled individually for reserves. The only ways to get one roll for more than one unit are when you combine them, i.e an IC and squad or a squad in a non-dedicated transport.

Your answer to this question forces you to make a very complicated answer to IG.96A.02 in the FAQ. The answer to .02 is - roll 1 dice for the Valkyre/Vendetta squadron as it is ONE UNIT.

@ryan3740 -- The IG codex specifically states you roll for the entire platoon collectively if they are in reserve (see top of page 96 of the IG codex), which overides the BRB.

lindsay40k wrote:+TYR.48E.01 – Q: Can a Spore Mine Cluster attempt
to Deep Strike directly over an enemy unit?
A: Yes it may [clarification].

Erm, the Spore Mine Cluster Deep Strikes into play before deployment, how could an enemy unit be around for it to Deep Strike on top of?

Go back a page on this thread. Yak already identified that this issue was acidentally left over from the old nid FAQ and will be taken out when the new revision is made.

Here are some suggestions to tighten up some Imperial Armor Daemon units:

Aetaos’rau’keres (IAA2) has a form of Master of Sorcery, but doesn’t need it because of his status as a gargantuan creature. The wording in IAA2 should be ignored and not interpreted as a limit on the number of shooting attacks he can make.

Jibberjaw (IA7) should have the daemonic rule in his description. Without it, we’re left wondering just how he manages to get to the battle.

Scabbiethrax (IA7), Mamon (IA7), Jibberjaw (IA7), Blight Drones (IA7), and Plague Hulks (IAA2) are all followers of Nurgle for purposes of Tally of Pestilence.

yakface wrote:Howdy everyone,

Attached below is the latest version (v3.2) of the Independent National Warhammer 40,000 Tournament FAQ (INAT FAQ), produced primarily for Adepticon 2010...and barring any additional GW FAQs will be the last update until after Adepticon.

Well, we have the deffrolla amendment now, I'll be interested to see how this attack is to be ruled on by INAT FAQ's council.

I posted this in the Deff Rolla thread, but I figure it can't hurt to cross post it:

yakface wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
Will the 'response' to Deffrollas being legal to crush LRs being a total backlash on the width of custom BWs and people getting up in arms and requesting the disqualification of any BW that is slightly larger than the stock model? Will people figure "if you are going to deffroll me, I am going to cause you pain by refusing to allow anything but the stock BW and stock deffroller 100% unmodified." While we all know they could claim RAW as the rulebooks ays official citadel minis, we all now RAP that most people don't mind custom ork vehicles and have never had a reason to really complain... until now.

I am curious to see how Adepticon handles this and how they rule on converted and custom Ork transports.

As with all cases of modeling for in-game advantage, at Adepticon they will be handled on a case-by-base basis.

If you're playing with non-standard Battlwagons and/or Deff Rollas and a tournament judge feels you've done so to gain an advantage you could suffer a number of penalties, such as being forced to play the game 'as if' they were the stock size of the GW battlewagon all the way up to being ejected from the tourney.

Ultimately if you think it even might be an issue you should be contacting Adepticon ahead of time using their 'model policy' email address and especially bringing it up before each game with your opponent to make sure you smooth it over with them.


And yes, this ruling will obviously apply at Adepticon and we will be ruling on ancillary issues (like if the Deff Rolla hits can destroy the rammed vehicle and allow the Battlewagon to continue ramming), but we probably won't put out the update until GW releases their Tyranid FAQ, as we're trying to only do one more update.

Of course, if GW doesn't release a Tyranid FAQ soon...then we'll see.

I have a stupid question as others have told me on other forums. Why can't Spore Mines assault? I don't understand how this is a rules clarification but an actual rules change.

Yes I know I am new, but no where do I see in the 5th edtion Tyranid codex or 5th edtion rules where it says Spore Mines can't assault. I know in the 4th edtion codex it says they can't assault, but no where in 5th I can find this.

Can someone explain to me how this is a rules clarification instead of a rules change?

Spore minds drift. They don't assault per say. I don't where you are getting that from.

G

They do drift in the movement phase, and they are not allowed to run as described in their rules, but no part of their rules disallows them from assaulting. Technically, if you drift less than 6 inches, no part of the rules disallows you from moving the remainder in any direction you like.

The spore mine rules are very poorly written and do little to actually restrict the player.


Thematically, it's not unlikely to accept assaulting spore mines-- they are heat/pressure/vibration/sound-seeking, after all. It makes very little sense for them to randomly wander the field while ignoring models they could have reached.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Spore minds drift. They don't assault per say. I don't where you are getting that from.

G

In the 4th edtion, it told you what spore mines can't do. It specifially says it can't assault. Now we are in 5th edtion. The Living bomb rule states, that spore mines can't run, can't go to ground, and can't fall back. No where does it say it can't assault. So since it dosn't say it can't assault, it should be able to assault like any other infantry unit since it's listed as infantry. Since I am a newbie, I am only going by what the rules tell me. So where does it say Spore Mines can't assault?

*edit* I ment to say they can't Run, not assault.

In the 4th edtion, it told you what spore mines can't do. It specifially says it can't assault. Now we are in 5th edtion. The Living bomb rule states, that spore mines can't assault, can't go to ground, and can't fall back. No where does it say it can't assault.

rofl

He mistyped. It says they can't run, fall back, or go to ground. That's it.

L0rdF1end wrote:

In the 4th edtion, it told you what spore mines can't do. It specifially says it can't assault. Now we are in 5th edtion. The Living bomb rule states, that spore mines can't assault, can't go to ground, and can't fall back. No where does it say it can't assault.

rofl

Yeah I mistyped. oops, slaps face.