Please note, this is a working draft of the FAQ as voted upon by a council of Independent Tournament Organizers and is subject to change. This overrides any previous rulings I have made. This is also the FAQ you will see at many events, including Adepticon, WargamesCon, Feast of Blades, etc. so the rulings here will be in common use.

Warhammer 40,000 Rule Book

General Principles

- Being “removed from play” is the same thing as being “removed as a casualty”.

The Movement Phase

- A Tank is allowed to move through enemy models not locked in close combat when it turns on the spot to “aim” as part of a Tank Shock. Units moved through in this way count as being Tank Shocked and models in the path of the pivot may make Death or Glory attacks (provided the unit passes its Morale test). [pg. 76, W40KRB]

The Shooting Phase

- Models that Turbo-boost in the Shooting phase can move any number of inches (up to the maximum for their unit type) in any combination of directions, potentially ending the phase in the exact same position. [pg. 45, W40KRB]
- When a unit makes a shooting attack, so long as a model in the target unit was within range and LoS of at least one model in the firing unit when To Hit rolls were made the target model may have wounds allocated to it and be removed as a casualty.
Ex 1: A unit of 10 Grey Hunters with 8 Boltguns and 2 Meltaguns fires at a unit of Chaos Space Marines. The Space Wolves player chooses to resolve the Boltgun wounds first. After armor saves are made for the Boltgun wounds, the closest CSM is beyond the 12” range of either Meltaguner. This CSM model may still have the Meltagun wounds allocated to it and be removed as a casualty if any one of the Boltgun wielding Grey Hunters had range and LoS to it when To Hit rolls were made.
Ex 2: A Space Marine Tactical Squad with 4 Boltguns and a Lascannon shoots at a unit of Ork Boys. All 4 Boltgun wielding Marines have range and LoS to the same Ork Boy, but only that Boy. The Lascannon Marine has range and LoS to the entire Ork Boy unit. All Ork Boys can have unsaved wounds allocated to them and be removed as casualties. [pg. 3, W40KRB FAQ]

The Assault Phase

- Units are considered to be locked in close combat as soon as any enemy model moves into base to base contact with the unit. This prevents them from firing Overwatch against other units charging later in the Assault phase. [pg. 23, W40KRB]
- Units may choose not to make a Consolidation move after winning an assault. If they choose not to all models in the unit are left in their exact positions. [pg. 27, W40KRB]
- If a unit chooses to make a Consolidation move all models in the unit must end the movement 1” away from all enemy models. This means that if a unit chooses to make a Consolidation move it must end the move 1” away from all enemy vehicles, including those it may have just attacked in close combat. [pg. 27, W40KRB]

Psykers/Psychic Powers

- Multiple instances of the same Malediction cast by different models do stack with each other. [pg. 68, W40KRB]
- The Objuration Mechanicum psychic power has no effect on Zooming Flyers.

Universal Special Rules

- If a model with the Swarms special rule is wounded by a template or blast weapon that also causes Instant Death, the number of wounds is doubled and then an entire model is removed for each wound (e.g. if a Helldrake with a Baleflamer causes 3 wounds to a unit of Necron Scarabs 6 Scarab models would be removed as casualties). [pgs. 16 & 43, W40KRB]
- A unit can perform a Vector Strike in the same turn that it leaves Combat Airspace. [pgs. 43 & 81, W40KRB]

Flyers and Flying Monstrous Creatures

- Any attacks or special abilities that automatically effect enemy units without rolling to hit (e.g. an Ork Weirdboy’s Zzap psychic power, Imotekh’s Lord of the Storm or Njal’s Lord of Tempests special rules) have no effect on Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures. This is true even if the attacking unit has the Skyfire special rule.
- Weapons mounted on a Flyer model can swivel downward up to 45 degrees, even if the barrel on the model itself cannot physically do that. [pg. 72, W40KRB]

Blast Weapons

- Models completely out of LoS of the firing unit can be hit by a blast template and add wounds to the wound pool for the shooting attack. However, models completely out of LoS cannot have unsaved wounds allocated to them, and so cannot be removed as a casualties.

Template Weapons

- Models completely out of LoS of the firing unit can be hit by a template weapon and add wounds to the wound pool for the shooting attack. However, models completely of out LoS cannot have unsaved wounds allocated to them, and so cannot be removed as a casualties.
- Template weapons with the Torrent special rule must still abide by all relevant targeting and casualty removal rules of a template weapon (e.g. the firer must have LoS to the first model hit by the template). [pg. 43, W40KRB]

Allies

- A unit with an allied Independent Character attached cannot embark or begin the game embarked upon a transport vehicle. [pg. 112, W40KRB]
- Allies of Convenience are scoring units for the purchasing player, provided they meet all requirements to be a scoring unit. [pg. 112, W40KRB]

Fortifications

- Fortifications are not considered enemy or friendly units, do not generate Victory Points when destroyed, do not trigger effects caused by destroying a unit, and do not count as a surviving model in the purchasing player’s army. [pg. 44, W40KRB]
- Gun emplacements cannot be targeted by psychic powers, tank shocked, or assaulted. If while in assault with another unit a gun emplacement is engaged in close combat, attacks may be directed at the gun emplacement as if it was a separate unit.
- Both players may have a model in base contact with the same gun emplacement (provided they are 1” apart) and both models may fire it in consecutive Shooting phases. [pg. 105, W40KRB]
- Any model with a BS greater than 0 may fire a gun emplacement, including all vehicles and models without a ranged weapon. [pg. 105, W40KRB]
- Models on top of a Bastion that are obscured by the battlements receive a 4+ cover save. [pg. 97, W40KRB]
- Models behind a Bastion and obscured by the building portion of the model receive a 3+ cover save. [pg. 18, W40KRB]
- Models obscured by a ruined bastion receive a 4+ cover save. [pg. 18, W40KRB]
- The purchased Comms Relay and gun emplacement for a Bastion must be placed on the model’s roof.
- For the purposes of movement and unit coherency, treat the Skyshield Landing Pad as a ruin without a base and one upper level.
- Only models physically on top of a shielded Skyshield Landing Pad gain a 4+ invulnerable save.
- The shielding walls of a Skyshield Landing Pad are battlements and provide a 4+ cover save to models obscured by them.
- Models obscured by the leg/pillar portion of a Skyshield Landing Pad receive a 3+ cover save.

Missions

- Fast Attack and Heavy Support choices count as denial units in The Scouring and The Big Guns Never Tire missions respectively.
- Fast Attack and Heavy Support choices with the Swarms special rule count as scoring units in The Scouring and The Big Guns Never Tire missions respectively.
- In The Relic mission, if the relic is dropped because it moves more than 6” in a single phase, then it is dropped from the position where the carrying model began its move this phase.
- Units embarked on a transport cannot achieve the Linebreaker Secondary Objective for being in the enemy deployment zone.

Drop Pods

- Models disembarking from a drop pod can make a normal move ending wholly within 6” of the pod.
- When a drop pod deploys it is treated as suffering an immobilized damage result and removes a hull point.
- If a drop pod deploys into dangerous terrain and fails its DT test, it is treated as an already immobilized vehicle suffering a second immobilized result. It therefore removes two more hull points and is wrecked.
- If a drop pod is wrecked because of a failed dangerous terrain test, the unit inside is considered to be disembarking from a wrecked vehicle. They must end their disembarkation move wholly within 3” of the drop pod and take a Pinning test.
- The doors of a drop pod model are ignored for all game purposes (e.g. they never block LoS, they may not be disembarked from, and enemy models do not need to remain 1” away).
- A drop pod themed army may only start every unit in reserve if the following conditions are met:
+ Every unit (except Independent Characters) begins the game in their own dedicated drop pod transport.
+ Every Independent Character is joined to a unit inside their own dedicated drop pod transport.

[pg. 36, W40KRB]

Black Templars

Blood Angels

- The Blood Lance psychic power has no effect against Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures.

Chaos Daemons

- When Chaos Daemons are taken as an allied detachment two Daemonic Heralds may still be taken as a single HQ selection.
- Epidemius’ Tally of Pestilence special rule allows non-daemon models to benefit from Noxious Tough.
- A unit of Screamers of Tzeentch cannot make Slash Attacks against Zooming Flyers or Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures.

Chaos Space Marines

- A model without the Champion of Chaos special rule may attempt a Glorious Intervention to save a model with the Champion of Chaos rule. [pg. 65, W40KRB]
- Two Independent Characters with different Marks of Chaos can both join the same unmarked unit.
- A marked Independent Character from the Chaos Space Marines codex cannot join a unit from the Chaos Daemons codex without a mark but devoted to a different god (e.g. Lucius the Eternal cannot join a unit of Bloodletters).
- Force weapons cannot cause Instant Death to Kharn the Betrayer even if their strength is double his toughness value (e.g. a Nemesis Daemonhammer). [pg. 59, C:CSM]
- A Warpsmith cannot use a fire point to curse an enemy vehicle with the Master of Mechanism’s special rule while embarked on a - vehicle.
- Plague Zombies can man gun emplacements and fire emplaced weapons. [pg. 105, W40KRB]
- LoS for a Helldrake with a Baleflamer is drawn from the head of the model. The head has a 360 degree LoS and ignores the rest of the Helldrake model when drawing LoS.
- Models with a Chaos bike may use their twin linked bolter as the replacement when the Chaos Wargear Lists says, “a model can replace one weapon with…”
- A Dimensional Key does not override the effects of the Jamming Beacon wargear on a Land Speeder Storm.

Dark Angels

- Dark Angels units using the Deathwing Assault special rule are ignored for the purposes of calculating the number of units that may be held in Reserves.
- A unit containing Belial that uses the Gate of Infinity psychic power to Deep Strike does not scatter. Also, the unit does not need to roll to see if a model is claimed by the warp.
- Ezekiel does benefit from the Book of Salvation wargear effectively making him WS6. [pg. 54, CA]
- A Deathwing Terminator model can take a Cyclone Missile Launcher and a Thunderhammer & Storm Shield. [pg. 99, CA]
- The following weapons are considered to be Boltguns when using the Standard of Devastation; Boltguns, Twin-linked Boltguns, Master-crafted Boltguns, Hurricane Bolters, and Combi-weapons (when fired as a Boltgun). Also note that the terms Boltgun and Bolter are always used interchangeably.
- The Shroud of Angels special rule means that two Ravenwing Darkshrouds within 6” of one another give each other Stealth. This Stealth stacks with the Shrouded the Dark Talons already have. [pg. 49, CA]

Dark Eldar

- The Penetrating Blade special rule applies to all of Lelith Hesperex’s attacks, even ranged attacks. [pg. 49, CE]

Eldar

- An Eldar Independent Character joined to a Dark Eldar unit cannot be the target of a psychic power that must be cast on an Eldar Unit.[pg. 39, W40KRB]
- An Eldar unit with a Dark Eldar Independent Character joined to it can be the target of a psychic power that must be cast on an Eldar Unit. While joined, the effects of the psychic power apply to the Dark Eldar character. [pg. 39, W40KRB]
- Phoenix Lords do not directly convey their unit benefits to non-aspect warrior units. However, if a Phoenix Lord has a special rule that would apply to any unit they join, those rules do apply to non-aspect warrior units joined by the Pheonix Lord (e.g. Khandras does not give the Stealth special rule to a unit of Guardians. But if Khandras joins a unit of Guardians the entire unit benefits from Stealth while he is attached.). [pg 54, C:Edr]
- If Prince Yriel chooses to use his Eye of Wrath wargear while he is involved in a challenge, place the large blast template normally. The enemy model also involved in the challenge is treated as being in a separate unit from any other units hit by the template. Wounds are then determined normally for each effected unit, removing casualties in order of closest to Prince Yriel. Using the Eye of Wrath in this way allows Prince Yriel to wound models not directly involved in the challenge.
- Cover saves may not be taken against Prince Yriel’s Eye of Wrath attacks.
- A Swooping Hawk unit that uses the Skyleap special rule to go back into reserves goes into Reserves, not Ongoing Reserves, and will therefore need to roll to return to the table on turns 2 and 3. [pg. 35, C:Edr]
- Vibro Cannon attacks have no effect against Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures.
- A model with the Eternal Warrior special rule still dies automatically and is removed if it fails its leadership test after being wounded by a Diresword. [pg. 30, C:Edr]

Grey Knights

- Allied units cannot benefit from the Grand Strategy special rule.
- A Neural Shredder uses the majority leadership of the target unit when rolling to wound.

Imperial Guard

- Valkyries and Vendettas cannot outflank. [pg. 4, C:IG FAQ]

Necrons

- If a model with the Reanimation Protocol special rule is part of a unit caught in a Sweeping Advance, do not place a Reanimation Protocol or Ever Living counter next to the unit.
- A successful Feel No Pain roll does not negate the armor reducing effects of the Entropic Strike special rule.
- If a Cryptek or any Independent Character is joined to a unit of Deathmarks that model also benefits from the Hunters from Hyperspace special rule.
- A Doom Scythe’s Death Ray is a hull mounted weapon. The initial point for the Death Ray can be anywhere within 12” of the weapon, and the second point anywhere within 3D6” of the first. However, only models in the Doom Scythe’s LoS and range (the greater of 24” from the Tesla Destructor or the variable range from the Death Ray) can have unsaved wounds allocated to them and be removed as causalities. For casualty removal purposes the Death Ray’s range is 12” plus the 3D6” rolled when picking the second point. Vehicles completely out of the Doom Scythe’s LoS are unaffected by the attack. Note that the Death Ray line may still pass over models completely out of LoS and cause hits for that unit. But in order to cause any casualties the unit must have some models in LoS and range of the Doom Scythe.
- The player whose turn it is determines whether the effects of mindschackle scarabs and whip coils are resolved before or after models involved in a challenge are moved into base to base contact. [pg. 9, W40KRB]
- When Mindshackle Scarabs are controlling a Deathwing Knight either the Necron or Dark Angels player can choose to activate the unit’s Smite Mode, and all Deathwing Knights in the unit must follow suit. However, if one player is striking at a higher Initiative step than the other player (e.g. the mindshalked Deathwing Knight is also being affected by a whip coil), then whichever mode the first attacking Deathwing Knight(s) choose to attack in will apply to all Deathwing Knights from the same unit.
- The Chronometron wargear can only be used on rolls of a single D6 (e.g. an armor save) not rolls that use multiple dice (e.g. a leadership test).

Orks

Sisters of Battle

- If Saint Celestine is turned into a Squig by the Zogwart’s Curse special rule in the Orks codex her Miraculous Intervention rule is effectively ignored. The Miraculous Intervention rule is triggered when she is removed as a casualty, this does not happen with Zogwort’s Curse. However, she is not considered “destroyed” until the squig is destroyed. But even after the squig is destroyed she cannot use Miraculous Intervention to return to the game.
- If Saint Celestine is turned into a Chaos Spawn using the Boon of Mutation special rule in the Chaos Daemons codex she is considered to be removed as a casualty. Place the Miraculous Intervention counter at the spot where she was turned into a spawn and roll normally for her return. The spawn version of Celestine remains in play whether or not she returns to the game. This means there could be multiple spawn versions of Celestine on the table.
- Attacks and special rules that reduce a characteristic or apply an ongoing effect to Saint Celestine (e.g. the Entropic Strike special rule) still apply if she returns to the game via Miraculous Intervention.

Space Marines

Space Wolves

- If an Ally of Convenience casts a psychic power within 24” of a Runic Weapon the Space Wolves player must roll a D6, and on a 4+ (3+ for Njal) that power is nullified. This is done instead of the Deny the Witch roll the opposing player would normally make. [pg. 112, W40kRB]
- Jump Infantry is a subclass of Infantry, and therefore Jump Infantry models are affected normally by the Jaws of the World Wolf psychic power.

Tau Empire

Tyranids

- A Tervigon cannot spawn Termagants in the same turn that is uses the Gate of Infinity psychic power.
- Units with the Stubborn special rule ignore the Deathleaper’s It’s After Me rule when taking Morale or Pinning tests.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
Fantastic work!

I completely agree with your ruling on the devastation banner.

I do disagree with mss being used to activate a units special attacks, like the DW knights smite. Bear in mind I am bringing Necrons!

 yakface wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
Fantastic work!

I completely agree with your ruling on the devastation banner.

I do disagree with mss being used to activate a units special attacks, like the DW knights smite. Bear in mind I am bringing Necrons!

Smite mode is an ability of a Melee weapon and therefore it is fair game for MSS to access.

Remember that GW ruled that MSS can force a psyker to activate his force ability as well (because it is an ability of a weapon), which means in the case of Nemesis weapons in a GK unit, a similar precedent is used (a MSS GK can essentially force his unit to activate its force weapons for the round if the unit still has a warp charge that turn).

The fact that Smite mode is a once per game ability does not change that basic logic. And remember, if the opposite logic was used (that the MSS Deathwing Knight couldn't activate Smite Mode because the rest of the unit didn't want to) then this would also mean that as long as a Deathwing Knight is under the sway of MSS then the rest of the unit would be unable to activate Smite Mode (if the Necron Player doesn't want to activate it on the model he controls).

But more importantly, Smite Mode is not a squad ability. It is just a rule that says all models in the unit must use Smite Mode at the same time, which means that if any models in the unit want to use the ability, the rest of them are compelled (by the rule) to do so. If the rule said something like: 'Smite Mode cannot be used by a model unless all models in the unit activate it at the same time', then the answer would be different.

 Hulksmash wrote:
@OverwatchCnC

I already threw that one out there. We have a local guy that tried it

Hulksmash wrote:
Not a fan of the tankshock ruling but I can see where it comes from. It does open up other issues though. Would you also ignore vehicles? They can’t be tankshocked and therefore should not be movable but the ruling implies they would.

dkellyj wrote:- Gun emplacements cannot be targeted by psychic powers, tank shocked, or assaulted.

The BRB on pg 105 specifically states that Gun Emplacements CAN be assaulted and attacks auto-hit.
It also states you can shoot at GEs, so I would think a Psychic shooting attack (shockwave, Molten Beam, Flame Breath, etc) would be legal while anything that causes an effect (Enfeeble, Puppet Master, etc) would not work.
As for Tank Shock...a RAM strike (a kind of Tank Shock) should be legal. The hit would be resolved against the T of the Gun (T7) while the ramming vehicle takes no damage since the Gun is on an unarmoured structure. The gun still gets it 3+ save and the Ramming vehicle stops at that point.

Imperial Guard

- Valkyries and Vendettas cannot outflank. [pg. 4, C:IG FAQ]

AlmightyWalrus wrote:The "Drop Pod themed army" bit is a little strange; the way it's worded now it seems to be implying that you're not allowed to start everything in reserves if you have some units embarked on a flier as opposed to a drop pod, which is probably not intended. Likewise, it'd prevent some Terminators, who may always start in Reserves, from starting in Reserves.

Peregrine wrote:Plus the reserve rule isn't even a correct ruling. You may place half your units rounded up into reserve. So if you have X units in drop pods, Y units aboard flyers (or otherwise forced to start in reserve), and one normal unit you can still put everything in reserve RAW. You only have to start something on the table if you have two or more not-forced-into-reserve units.

As-stated in the "FAQ" it's a house rule, and if this was deliberate it's pretty disappointing that an effort to make a "standard" tournament FAQ would include house rules.

Peregrine wrote:

Imperial Guard

- Valkyries and Vendettas cannot outflank. [pg. 4, C:IG FAQ]

This is incorrect. The FAQ clearly refers to the scout redeployment. FAQs can only clarify ambiguous situations (can I "redeploy" onto the table with a flyer?) not remove rules entirely. Only errata can remove or change rules (for example, the removal of the lumbering behemoth rule from the Leman Russ was done through errata), so until GW issues errata saying "Valkyrie/Vendetta (page X): remove the Scout USR" they may not redeploy onto the table at the start of the game, but may use the Outflank USR to outflank just like any other unit.

Q: What effect, if any, does the Scout special rule have on a Valkyrie or Vendetta? Will this allow it to enter play in Turn 1 by redeploying 6"
onto the board? (p56)
A: It has no effect.

Mr Morden wrote:The Squig and Spawn rulings seem to be a bit bizzare considering they do the same thing.

 yakface wrote:
That is NOT what the IG FAQ says. It actually says:

Q: What effect, if any, does the Scout special rule have on a Valkyrie or Vendetta? Will this allow it to enter play in Turn 1 by redeploying 6"
onto the board? (p56)
A: It has no effect.

Those are two questions, both answered with a single answer. The answer is, it has NO effect, not that it is has no effect on the flyer's ability to make a scout redeploy.

Mr Morden wrote:The Squig and Spawn rulings seem to be a bit bizzare considering they do the same thing.

Actually if you look at them, they are quite different (hence the different ruling).

Boon of Mutation specifically causes the model to be removed as a casualty. And THEN, if you have a spawn model available, you can replace the model with the Spawn. But, for example, if you don't have a Spawn, then you don't at all.

Zogwort's curse does not specify that the model is removed as a casualty (or even that the model is removed), it ONLY says that the model is replaced by a Squig, and then it goes on to explain that the Squig has no special rules besides being an IC, etc, which, along with the fact that the player whose model got replaced maintains control of the Squig, strongly implies that the model is actually getting turned into the Squig.

Fluff-wise, Boon of Mutation only makes sense if the model is also being turned into the spawn, but mechanics-wise it is a whole different beast from Zogwort's curse.

Peregrine wrote:
I know what the FAQ says.

The "it" in that sentence can be interpreted in two ways:

1) The benefits of the Scout USR itself (IOW, the redeployment). This is consistent with how FAQs are used because it simply clarifies something that was already answered RAW* for the people who don't bother reading the rulebook before asking stupid questions (and/or TFGs who think they're clever by finding loopholes to start their Vendettas on the table).

2) The entire text of the Scout USR, including the granting of the Outflank USR. This is NOT consistent with how FAQs are used because it is making a rule CHANGE, something that requires errata to do**.

The conclusion here is obvious: when you have two conflicting interpretations, you go with the one that does not contradict how GW uses FAQs and errata, and that is option #1.


*You have to redeploy within X", and a unit that is not on the table can not redeploy within X" and end up on the table.

**For example, when GW removed Lumbering Behemoth from the Leman Russ they did it with errata, not an FAQ. This is the proper use of errata and how to change a rule.

Mr Morden wrote:
In reality what is the difference between removal and replaced - both mean that its a casualty?

plus if the argument is that the model remains the same in the squig instance then why does she not return when the squig form is destroyed as normal?

Also why do effects linger even though its an entirely new version of her but she does not return as a spawn - does not make sense to me.

 schadenfreude wrote:

Can members of a platoon embark in a Valkyrie or vendetta if their platoon starts on the board?

Allies

- A unit with an allied Independent Character attached cannot embark or begin the game embarked upon a transport vehicle. [pg. 112, W40KRB]
- Allies of Convenience are scoring units for the purchasing player, provided they meet all requirements to be a scoring unit. [pg. 112, W40KRB]

 kronk wrote:

Allies

- A unit with an allied Independent Character attached cannot embark or begin the game embarked upon a transport vehicle. [pg. 112, W40KRB]
- Allies of Convenience are scoring units for the purchasing player, provided they meet all requirements to be a scoring unit. [pg. 112, W40KRB]

So this means that allies of convenience can score by themselves, but can they prevent the primary detachment from scoring (and vice versa), since they treat each other as enemies?

 kronk wrote:
So this means that allies of convenience can score by themselves, but can they prevent the primary detachment from scoring (and vice versa), since they treat each other as enemies?

- The Objuration Mechanicum psychic power has no effect on Zooming Flyers.
- Models completely out of LoS of the firing unit can be hit by a blast template and add wounds to the wound pool for the shooting attack. However, models completely out of LoS cannot have unsaved wounds allocated to them, and so cannot be removed as a casualties.
- Fast Attack and Heavy Support choices count as denial units in The Scouring and The Big Guns Never Tire missions respectively.
- Fast Attack and Heavy Support choices with the Swarms special rule count as scoring units in The Scouring and The Big Guns Never Tire missions respectively.

- The Objuration Mechanicum psychic power has no effect on Zooming Flyers.

- Jump Infantry is a subclass of Infantry, and therefore Jump Infantry models are affected normally by the Jaws of the World Wolf psychic power.

- A Doom Scythe’s Death Ray is a hull mounted weapon.

- A successful Feel No Pain roll does not negate the armor reducing effects of the Entropic Strike special rule.

- If Prince Yriel chooses to use his Eye of Wrath

- Dark Angels units using the Deathwing Assault special rule are ignored for the purposes of calculating the number of units that may be held in Reserves.

- LoS for a Helldrake with a Baleflamer

- Epidemius’ Tally of Pestilence special rule allows non-daemon models to benefit from Noxious Tough.

- Weapons mounted on a Flyer model can swivel downward up to 45 degrees, even if the barrel on the model itself cannot physically do that. [pg. 72, W40KRB]

 Chumbalaya wrote:

 kronk wrote:
So this means that allies of convenience can score by themselves, but can they prevent the primary detachment from scoring (and vice versa), since they treat each other as enemies?

I hate you

rigeld2 wrote:

- The Objuration Mechanicum psychic power has no effect on Zooming Flyers.

Why? It's a Malediction so it doesn't roll to hit. This is an outright change to the rules instead of a clarification.

rigeld2 wrote:

- Dark Angels units using the Deathwing Assault special rule are ignored for the purposes of calculating the number of units that may be held in Reserves.

Why? Just because they used to be able to? I'd love to hear a reasoning behind this.

rigeld2 wrote:

Weapons mounted on a Flyer model can swivel downward up to 45 degrees, even if the barrel on the model itself cannot physically do that. [pg. 72, W40KRB]

Is this 45 degrees down from level, despite the fact that the rules say 45 degrees *total* (so 22.5 down)?

 Mannahnin wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

- The Objuration Mechanicum psychic power has no effect on Zooming Flyers.

Why? It's a Malediction so it doesn't roll to hit. This is an outright change to the rules instead of a clarification.

I actually think this one is in line with sentences two and three of the GW rulebook FAQ, because OM causes Haywire hits. More detailed discussion about "attacks" here:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/506529.page#5277151

- A marked Independent Character from the Chaos Space Marines codex cannot join a unit from the Chaos Daemons codex without a mark but devoted to a different god (e.g. Lucius the Eternal cannot join a unit of Bloodletters).

•Fast Attack and Heavy Support choices count as denial units in The Scouring and The Big Guns Never Tire missions respectively.

The rules are pretty explicit about scoring and denial units. Troops are specifically mentioned as both for a reason. I feel this is a rule change, not a clarification.

- The following weapons are considered to be Boltguns when using the Standard of Devastation; Boltguns, Twin-linked Boltguns, Master-crafted Boltguns, Hurricane Bolters, and Combi-weapons (when fired as a Boltgun). Also note that the terms Boltgun and Bolter are always used interchangeably.

Breng77 wrote:

- The following weapons are considered to be Boltguns when using the Standard of Devastation; Boltguns, Twin-linked Boltguns, Master-crafted Boltguns, Hurricane Bolters, and Combi-weapons (when fired as a Boltgun). Also note that the terms Boltgun and Bolter are always used interchangeably.

Leave off the last statement by that rational a Storm Bolter = Storm Boltgun, and then should benefit.

 pretre wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

- The following weapons are considered to be Boltguns when using the Standard of Devastation; Boltguns, Twin-linked Boltguns, Master-crafted Boltguns, Hurricane Bolters, and Combi-weapons (when fired as a Boltgun). Also note that the terms Boltgun and Bolter are always used interchangeably.

Leave off the last statement by that rational a Storm Bolter = Storm Boltgun, and then should benefit.

It is to clarify the fact that some codexes (and the Rulebook) say Bolter when they mean Boltgun and boltgun when they mean bolter. I don't think that is unclear in their response.

Drop Pods
- ruling A -When a drop pod deploys it is treated as suffering an immobilized damage result and removes a hull point.

- ruling B - If a drop pod deploys into dangerous terrain and fails its DT test, it is treated as an already immobilized vehicle suffering a second immobilized result. It therefore removes two more hull points and is wrecked.

Brothererekose wrote:
Can someone explain that to me?

 Peregrine wrote:

Brothererekose wrote:
Can someone explain that to me?

If you suffer an "immobilized" result on a vehicle that is already immobilized you instead remove an additional hull point. So -1 HP on arrival for the first "immobilized" result on arrival, -1 for taking the second "immobilized" result in dangerous terrain,

 Peregrine wrote:
and -1 for the substitute effect, for a total of -3.

 Hulksmash wrote:
I'm also curious if a list of the organizers involved on the council can be provided. It's naturally your choice to run your events how you want to but I'd like to know who is making the decisions if it's possible.

Two large events that aren't noted that jump out at me are Da Boyz and Nova. Actually, I'm not seeing a single East Coast event listed on there.

Personally I think the list of people involved should include the TO of any event that has attendance of over 100 players for their main 40k event. That's assuming they want to be involved but they should at least be invited. Seems only reasonable as this would lead to a greater acceptance nationally as well.

Brothererekose wrote:
What is this 'substitute' effect? I don't see where *that* is coming from.

Checking the BRB page 74, simply states to just remove an additional HP if it's already Immobilized. Not remove two.

Now, game-wise, I'm pretty sure this will rarely come up. Most DPs are arriving Turn 1, and not likely to have DT to scatter into, so this prolly won't come up.

 Peregrine wrote:

Brothererekose wrote:
What is this 'substitute' effect? I don't see where *that* is coming from.

If you're already immobilized, replace the "immobilized" effect with an additional HP loss.

Brothererekose wrote:
Checking the BRB page 74, simply states to just remove an additional HP if it's already Immobilized. Not remove two.

 Peregrine wrote:
The second one is for failing a dangerous terrain roll. The additional

 Peregrine wrote:
HP lost for a second "immobilized" result is in addition to the one you lose from whatever generated that "immobilized" result. So, for example, a penetrating hit that inflicts a second "immobilized" result would mean you lose 2 HP.

rigeld2 wrote:

- The Objuration Mechanicum psychic power has no effect on Zooming Flyers.

Why? It's a Malediction so it doesn't roll to hit. This is an outright change to the rules instead of a clarification.

rigeld2 wrote:

- Jump Infantry is a subclass of Infantry, and therefore Jump Infantry models are affected normally by the Jaws of the World Wolf psychic power.

Should also note Jump Monstrous Creatures.

rigeld2 wrote:

- A Doom Scythe’s Death Ray is a hull mounted weapon.

Should clarify where LoS is drawn from. Anywhere on the hull? The weapon?

rigeld2 wrote:

- A successful Feel No Pain roll does not negate the armor reducing effects of the Entropic Strike special rule.

Interesting stance. Now - is this going to be consistent for every ability with an unsaved wound as the trigger?
If you're going to change the rules at least be consistent.

rigeld2 wrote:

- If Prince Yriel chooses to use his Eye of Wrath

I assume you're going to be ruling similarly for other abilities that are used in combat/CC? I know Chaos has one and so do Daemons.

rigeld2 wrote:

- Dark Angels units using the Deathwing Assault special rule are ignored for the purposes of calculating the number of units that may be held in Reserves.

Why? Just because they used to be able to? I'd love to hear a reasoning behind this.

rigeld2 wrote:

- LoS for a Helldrake with a Baleflamer

But not with a Hades Autocannon? Why?

rigeld2 wrote:

- Weapons mounted on a Flyer model can swivel downward up to 45 degrees, even if the barrel on the model itself cannot physically do that. [pg. 72, W40KRB]

Is this 45 degrees down from level, despite the fact that the rules say 45 degrees *total* (so 22.5 down)? Also, can the model shoot through itself - meaning can the top turret on a Stormraven shoot through the cockpit?

rigeld2 wrote:
Need to rule on Spirit Leech - is it resolved as a Shooting Attack (and therefore things like the Skyshield invul works against it) or a special rule that causes wounds (similar to Soul Blaze) and also what method of allocation to use (Random or opponents choice - the latter has precedent in Soul Blaze).

SCP Yeeman wrote:
What is the purpose Darkwynn of changing core rules like allowing all heavies to deny in the big gunz missions or fast attack in the scouring?

It seems the council.got.together and changed some things youguys dont like... There is no reason to change a core rule to the game or the.missions...it makes playing those missions totally different than theyre written in the real rulebook... Out of the small group of you guys, did the question of allowing vehicles that are heavies or fast attack deny really come up? Find that hard to believe especially bexause it is so clear in the book... Changing core rules is not an FAQ, thats called changing the rules and thus we play a new game that was not written by GW but a secret council thay we know has about 4 members so far

Can you explain that rule change which i believe is by far the biggest thing you guys changed?

 Mannahnin wrote:
Yak, the third CSM clarification is not needed, as the Daemons FAQ completely forbids them being joined by allied ICs anyway.

 Chumbalaya wrote:

- Models completely out of LoS of the firing unit can be hit by a blast template and add wounds to the wound pool for the shooting attack. However, models completely out of LoS cannot have unsaved wounds allocated to them, and so cannot be removed as a casualties.

These rules changes make no sense and directly contradict the rulebook.

 kronk wrote:

 Chumbalaya wrote:

 kronk wrote:
So this means that allies of convenience can score by themselves, but can they prevent the primary detachment from scoring (and vice versa), since they treat each other as enemies?

I hate you

Note: I don't care either way, I just want clarification for how to handle it.

Breng77 wrote:

Can Fortifications (emplaced weapons, Bastions etc) claim coversaves?

 Mannahnin wrote:
BE, anything that inflicts a damage result normally inflicts one HP. So, first immobilized = lose one HP and Immobilized. Then the vehicle damage chart tells us that any subsequent immobilzed results cause the loss of an additional hull point. So that second damaging result STARTS by dealing a second hull point no matter what you roll as a result, then when it's Immobilized it loses an additional HP, which makes a total of three.

 Lightcavalier wrote:
4. Why can a Rhino fire a Gun Emplacement?

8. Plague Zombies shouldent be able to shoot, but I understand how that ruling came up

 Lightcavalier wrote:
9. Blatant change from GWs FAQ on the Helldrake Baleflamer

 Lightcavalier wrote:
10. Darkshroud ruling, exact opposite of GW FAQ

 Lightcavalier wrote:
13. Why the deviation on Whip Coils from the GW FAQ

dkellyj wrote:
Per the RB, Blast weapons can hit and cause wounds on UNITS out of line of sight, which is fine. But there is no permission granted to allocate wounds onto models completely out of LOS. And in fact the blast rules then say:

'Wounds are then allocated on the unit as for a normal shooting attack.'

All of that meaning you pull models that are closest to the firing unit first. Not that x-number of models under the blast marker are safe from being killed.
The idea being to distinguish how models are removed from an Ordnance hit (closest to farthest) from how they are removed from a Barrage Blast (removing closest to the center of the blast).

 Hulksmash wrote:
@darkwynn

I understand this isn't suppose to be something of the extent of the INAT. I don't expect or want that

It seemed to be presented as a Indy Tournament FAQ. It seems like this is a golden opportunity to create a solid document across the scope of the US. Something I know has been expressed by TO's like Reece and Mike Brandt. Having an FAQ for your event (like Reece did for his events previously) seems a silly reason to not open it up.

Seems like there are like minded inviduals who might be interested who haven't been invited to join the party so to speak. Did people reach out to Da Boyz or Brandt? What about some of the other east coast events that sell out regularly for decent sized events?

As a player who travels to events I'd love it if they were all on the same page. From East to West and North to South it would be amazing. And I think with the crop of TO's out there we could at least get all the major to hit events on the same page. Just feels like a squandered opportunity to me.

And while I won't agree with all the decisions (lord how I won't and I accept that) at least it'll be consistant across the country for the most part

Darkwynn wrote:That being said the people involved who are tournament organizers are not creating an INAT council or a group to replace what the INAT did. There is no "ITO Council or FAQ council" This is to be leveraged by our tournaments only and was mainly going to be rolled out as BAO FAQ, Adepticon FAQ, Wargames con FAQ and Feast of Blades FAQ, etc. If other groups want to leverage the FAQ that we create sure that is great but we are not forcing a faq on them.
It makes sense for us to work together as a small group and likeminded individuals while leveraging resources for us to create a FAQ and allow some consistency between events. This is all that is going.

Darkwynn wrote:Also our scope wasn’t to answer every question that the INAT did before. That way we can reduce the length changes and just clarify some obvious questions that need to be answered.

Darkwynn wrote:
As for the people who are putting this together it shouldn’t matter as the group isn’t looking to do what the INAT did and is only looking to make their events better. I am more than happy to ask questions but want to clarify some of the confusion.

Darkwynn wrote:
Nick Rose
Wargames Con organizer.

 yakface wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
I'm also curious if a list of the organizers involved on the council can be provided. It's naturally your choice to run your events how you want to but I'd like to know who is making the decisions if it's possible.

Two large events that aren't noted that jump out at me are Da Boyz and Nova. Actually, I'm not seeing a single East Coast event listed on there.

Personally I think the list of people involved should include the TO of any event that has attendance of over 100 players for their main 40k event. That's assuming they want to be involved but they should at least be invited. Seems only reasonable as this would lead to a greater acceptance nationally as well.

The final document produced does have a list of who is involved creating this document. And to be clear to everyone: This is an effort made by the events using this document. NOVA, for example, creates their own FAQ document and so has no need for this. This is not the INAT. Although several events are getting together to try to hammer out a FAQ that they all will use, ultimately each event can still present a slightly different version of the document for their particular event.

One of the big reasons to try to get the size down on the document is specifically so that it can be easily changed between events if need be. This is not to say that there WILL BE changes between events, but just that the possibility exists.

And in case anyone is wondering, although I do not have the time nor the inclination to currently be able to actually write something like the INAT anymore, if you haven't figured it out already from my responses in this thread, I am still at least involved in helping them make this.

zedsdead wrote:

I find this an interesting answer... Nick so what your telling everyone is a Tournament FAQ created by T.O.s from some of the biggest tournaments in North America wasnt intended to influence the gaming community and be leveraged as the defacto "go to faq for other Tournaments? A Tournament faq created with the assistance of the creator of the inat faq who doesnt intend on continuing its creation? A faq created by TO's who have been very vocal in these very forums about creating a comprehensive Tournament faq ?

In the vacuum of a non inat faqed 6th edition what is being created here is a replacement to the inat, involving (with the glaring lack of involvement from Mike Brandt)you,chandler,reece and matthias with the help of yakface. This isnt some little fix for some small time Tournaments. I find it hard to believe that you 5 guys dont think this will be considered as the replacement to the old inat faq.

It does matter whos involved because of the above comments i made. Why did these 4 events come together and not Nova ?I think if i was organizing this i would reach out to all of the people involved in major Tournaments across the US. Im going to assume the lack of a clear answer due to Mike not being approached ? Why would he not be included in creating a comprehensive ITfaq ?

Mannahnin wrote: Wouldn't the obvious reason for Mike not being involved be that he had previously made clear his preference to use his own FAQ rather than INAT?

Mannahnin wrote: Also he might just not have needed/wanted to get in on this first draft, which they've expressed they were rushing on because Reece needs it ASAP for BAO.

Mannahnin wrote:That being said, given the format and brief length of this new FAQ, I could certainly see it as being more compatible with his needs and preferred approach, and I'd be surprised if they're not discussing his possible involvement on a future iteration.

Rules Disputes: Rules disputes are bound to occur at an event this large and varied in attendance. Players should attempt to resolve all rules disputes between themselves at the table (using the appropriate codex, rulebook, FAQ). If this fails, contact a Floor Judge who will attempt to resolve the dispute using the appropriate game system documents. In some extreme situations, a Floor Judge reserves the right to escalate issues to the Head Rules Judge (if the event has one) – his/her decision is final.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Zed, the way you're talking about this seems to assume some sort of hostility or disrespect, which I don't think is warranted or helpful.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it's better practice to assume good faith rather than the opposite, especially when we're talking about well-respected and generally nice guys like Jon and Reece.

zedsdead wrote:

Thats where we agree... I see this being a perfect fit for Mike and NOVA. However since major players are avoiding the 800 lb elephant in the room i will assume this might not be the case...and i wonder why.

zedsdead wrote:
I always practice the assumption of good faith until i sense the hint of deception.

When i posted the question Mannahnin i expected a response that would answer a simple question. I was actually suprised by the "side stepping" nature of darkwyn and yakfaces responses. I think we have the right to know why people were invited into this and why certain people werent. I think we have the right to know if this was created by a cliq of guys only interested in patting each other on the back...or was this put together with people of like minds who might not always agree.

Im not interested in a faq by a buch of guys voting yes on every issue because thats how they "play it" Im interested in a faq created by people who arent looking to satisfy there own agendas.

yakface wrote:


The only reason the INAT is not continuing is because I can't afford the time anymore to put into its creation (its a whole lot easier to give commentary and feedback then it is to write and edit the whole thing).

yakface wrote:That leaves a void at the events that formerly utilized the INAT that has to be filled by a FAQ. Rather than have each event take the time to write a FAQ separately, they decided to get together to write it at the same time.

yakface wrote:This is not an INAT replacement, and is not intended to be a 'standard' in any way. It is made by and for very specific events.

yakface wrote:

It does matter whos involved because of the above comments i made. Why did these 4 events come together and not Nova ?I think if i was organizing this i would reach out to all of the people involved in major Tournaments across the US. Im going to assume the lack of a clear answer due to Mike not being approached ? Why would he not be included in creating a comprehensive ITfaq ?

The NOVA Open uses its own FAQ and therefore does not need a FAQ, simple as that.

I'm sure if Mike likes what he sees with the new format and wants to get onboard it will eventually happen.

 Matthias wrote:
Additionally, AdeptiCon is actually against the standardization of formats, missions and even FAQs. It has always been out intention to use the answers produced as a baseline on which to build our own event-specific document. While it will undoubtably bear many similarities to documents produced for other events, it will be an "AdeptiCon FAQ" and not expected to be used outside those confines.

 yakface wrote:

zedsdead wrote:

Thats where we agree... I see this being a perfect fit for Mike and NOVA. However since major players are avoiding the 800 lb elephant in the room i will assume this might not be the case...and i wonder why.

I think you're trying to pull out some reality that just doesn't exist that people are looking to somehow block Mike out from something, which, to my knowledge is simply not the case.

This was about need, plain and simple. Some events needed a FAQ, so got together to make one. Nothing more sinister than that. NOVA has always had its own FAQ and so is not in need of one.

I'm sure if they like what they see in the new format and want to get onboard then it will happen.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

zedsdead wrote:
I always practice the assumption of good faith until i sense the hint of deception.

When i posted the question Mannahnin i expected a response that would answer a simple question. I was actually suprised by the "side stepping" nature of darkwyn and yakfaces responses. I think we have the right to know why people were invited into this and why certain people werent. I think we have the right to know if this was created by a cliq of guys only interested in patting each other on the back...or was this put together with people of like minds who might not always agree.

Im not interested in a faq by a buch of guys voting yes on every issue because thats how they "play it" Im interested in a faq created by people who arent looking to satisfy there own agendas.

You keep progressing towards the narrative that this is a FAQ designed to force people to play a certain way...again this is an event FAQ for specific events.

Adepticon and Wargames con got together originally to make a FAQ because the INAT was not going to be available. After they started, they brought on the BAO and Feast of Blades because both those events showed interest in also needing a FAQ and wanting to create and use something shared like this.

So this is a FAQ for those 4 specific events...nothing more.

And the only reason I'm even involved is because I have experience with the myriad of issues involved with putting something like this together.

 Matthias wrote:
And to zeds question - AdeptiCon was asked via a third party (that is - not the NOVA) if we had interest in adopting the NOVA FAQ. Based on what I said above, you can see why we would not be interested in this in the simple sense.

I personally related that info to a few people involved in the initial FAQ calls (AdeptiCon and Wargames Con folks) and suggested they look at what other events have already done (particularly the NOVA and addendum produced for the BoS event) as it would provide a great starting point for common questions. As to how much those documents where referenced, I have no idea, but our goal was never one of standardization or assembling a grand council of TOs. It was to produce an AdeptiCon FAQ possibly informed by other events.

zedsdead wrote:

 Matthias wrote:
Additionally, AdeptiCon is actually against the standardization of formats, missions and even FAQs. It has always been out intention to use the answers produced as a baseline on which to build our own event-specific document. While it will undoubtably bear many similarities to documents produced for other events, it will be an "AdeptiCon FAQ" and not expected to be used outside those confines.

fair enough Matthius, but you do realize that participating in a panel of TO'S developing a faq in conjunction with each other to rush out a faq for the BAO implies that adepticon is for the standardization FAQs right ?

And whether or not you personally are a part of it... having Adepticons name splashed all over it implies your support.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 yakface wrote:

zedsdead wrote:

Thats where we agree... I see this being a perfect fit for Mike and NOVA. However since major players are avoiding the 800 lb elephant in the room i will assume this might not be the case...and i wonder why.

I think you're trying to pull out some reality that just doesn't exist that people are looking to somehow block Mike out from something, which, to my knowledge is simply not the case.

This was about need, plain and simple. Some events needed a FAQ, so got together to make one. Nothing more sinister than that. NOVA has always had its own FAQ and so is not in need of one.

I'm sure if they like what they see in the new format and want to get onboard then it will happen.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

zedsdead wrote:
I always practice the assumption of good faith until i sense the hint of deception.

When i posted the question Mannahnin i expected a response that would answer a simple question. I was actually suprised by the "side stepping" nature of darkwyn and yakfaces responses. I think we have the right to know why people were invited into this and why certain people werent. I think we have the right to know if this was created by a cliq of guys only interested in patting each other on the back...or was this put together with people of like minds who might not always agree.

Im not interested in a faq by a buch of guys voting yes on every issue because thats how they "play it" Im interested in a faq created by people who arent looking to satisfy there own agendas.

You keep progressing towards the narrative that this is a FAQ designed to force people to play a certain way...again this is an event FAQ for specific events.

Adepticon and Wargames con got together originally to make a FAQ because the INAT was not going to be available. After they started, they brought on the BAO and Feast of Blades because both those events showed interest in also needing a FAQ and wanting to create and use something shared like this.

So this is a FAQ for those 4 specific events...nothing more.

And the only reason I'm even involved is because I have experience with the myriad of issues involved with putting something like this together.

Im confused yak.... Matthius says that adepticon doesnt look to have a standardized version of a faq yet your telling us that they came together with WGC and then invited BAO and FOB in the creation of a standardized faq for 4 of the biggest tournaments in north america ?! Yet NOVA wasnt invited because they already had a "good start" on a standardized tournament faq ?

Darkwynn wrote:



We get it Zed you have an axe to grind for some reason.
You are making this out to be some witch hunt and something bigger then what it really is.
You have had multiple people tell you otherwise but you don't believe any of them.
You are also hostile to everything above and are coming off as hostile.

I don't think there really is anything else to talk about because you are the one who isn't in a state to have a discussion with. I suggest taking a break and come back to this discussion with a cool and level head if you want to get somewhere with this.

What was laid out above is what it is. you don't have to leverage the FAQ and it isn't replacing the idea of what INAT was. That wasn't the point of it.

 yakface wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

- The Objuration Mechanicum psychic power has no effect on Zooming Flyers.

Why? It's a Malediction so it doesn't roll to hit. This is an outright change to the rules instead of a clarification.

Because it inflicts an automatic hit and GW has made it pretty darn clear that anything that hits automatically. Now I agree that the other effects of the power (re-rolling hits and wound rolls of 6) should probably still apply and I will bring that point up.

rigeld2 wrote:

- Jump Infantry is a subclass of Infantry, and therefore Jump Infantry models are affected normally by the Jaws of the World Wolf psychic power.

Should also note Jump Monstrous Creatures.

You're right. However one thing to note is that: this document does not contain rules, and should never be read as such. These are clarifications about how a judge will rule some common tournament questions. So if Jump Monstrous Creatures is left of the list, for example, by default this doesn't mean it isn't also affected. Rather, Jump Infantry is the more common question and so is being answered. However, you can easily infer from the clarification presented as-is, that it would also affect Jump Monstrous Creatures. But yes, I will try to get that included because it is simple to do so.

rigeld2 wrote:

- A successful Feel No Pain roll does not negate the armor reducing effects of the Entropic Strike special rule.

Interesting stance. Now - is this going to be consistent for every ability with an unsaved wound as the trigger?
If you're going to change the rules at least be consistent.

Note that Entropic Strike is resolved 'immediately' when an unsaved wound is inflicted. Based on GW's ruling regarding the force effect (which also happens immediately) vs. FNP, this same principle was applied.

I cannot say how this would be applied to other things that are simply triggered at the same time as FNP but not noted as being 'immediate', but that should probably be included in the document.

rigeld2 wrote:

- If Prince Yriel chooses to use his Eye of Wrath

I assume you're going to be ruling similarly for other abilities that are used in combat/CC? I know Chaos has one and so do Daemons.

If you find out what those are, then I can let you know (or at least try to get them in the document if they need to be clarified).

rigeld2 wrote:

- LoS for a Helldrake with a Baleflamer

But not with a Hades Autocannon? Why?

I answered this above with the Jump Monstrous Creature. The Baleflamer is the common question so it is clarified. The fact that it doesn't mention the Hades Autocannon does not mean the same logic would not be applied.

rigeld2 wrote:

- Weapons mounted on a Flyer model can swivel downward up to 45 degrees, even if the barrel on the model itself cannot physically do that. [pg. 72, W40KRB]

Is this 45 degrees down from level, despite the fact that the rules say 45 degrees *total* (so 22.5 down)? Also, can the model shoot through itself - meaning can the top turret on a Stormraven shoot through the cockpit?

I won't comment on the vertical pivot question for now, except to say that this is a first draft and is still evolving.

Why would a weapon be able to shoot through the vehicle its mounted on? There are a few exceptions (Helldrake, for example), but these are the exceptions because in general you have to draw line of sight from the weapon mount down the barrel of the gun (or at least imagine you are in the case of fixed weapons).

rigeld2 wrote:
Need to rule on Spirit Leech - is it resolved as a Shooting Attack (and therefore things like the Skyshield invul works against it) or a special rule that causes wounds (similar to Soul Blaze) and also what method of allocation to use (Random or opponents choice - the latter has precedent in Soul Blaze).

Okay, will add that to the list.

Breng77 wrote:
I have to agree with zed on a lot here. If the intent is to collaborate and go your own way. Then any release of the FAQ should be event specific and not claim to be n Indy tourney FAQ (which sounds inat like.). If this is the case it sounds like some involved are co-opting the intent for a different agenda (creating an inat like document).

If the intent was to make a unified FAQ then ll major event organizers should have been approached.

Releasing a document as a Indy tourney FAQ makes it inat like whether that is the intent or not.

muwhe wrote:
Zed,

The simple answer is … I chose not to…. Because I had no pressing reason to invite them . Just as I had no reason to invite the ½ or more of the former INAT team including a significant number of AdeptiCon staff, the Da Boyz, the ATC organizers, the Astronomicon folks, or any host of highly qualified individuals and organizers of fantastic events around the country.

But I will make this clear ….as really the buck stops with me on this. My only concern past, present and future has been and will be to create a FAQ document for the benefit and enjoyment of AdeptiCon attendees and our slate of events. End of story.

That goes for the original AdeptiCon FAQ document. That same desire brought about teaming up with Yakface and creating the INAT, our efforts of the FW FAQ work we do and now that Yakface is no longer in a position to continue work on the INAT… that same motivation is driving the creation of this document.

To that end, I choose to achieve that goal in the most efficient , focused, and comprehensive manner possible, given time and resources available.


Unfortunatly Hank this wasnt the way it was presented. The community is aware that both reece and Chandle have been very verbal in there desire to create a comprehensive Tournament FAQ. Personally i dont have an issue with its creation... however when i asked the "group" as a whole... not just Adepticon, why certain TOs were not involved we were given conflicting and very defensive answers.


So with Yakface unavailable for the vast majority of heavy lifting I reached out to Nick Rose and our head judge Dave Creswell, to help in the creation of this document. Over the years, the BOLS guys have been involved in judging at AdeptiCon. AdeptiCon staff have been involved in judging at Wargamescon. Nick was going to be involved in judging the floor at AdeptiCon this year. Given the sharing of judging staff it made sense for us to collaborate on this document. From the beginning of this documents creation that was the sum total of involvement of other events beyond AdeptiCon … . Nick Rose.

Towards the latter part of the document, it became clear that we would have the Head Judge from the Feast of Blades working on the floor at AdeptiCon as well. The argument was made and discussed that with having him on the floor making calls at AdeptiCon … that he and the group would benefit from his involvement in the creation of the FAQ.. So the idea was thrown about and the decision was made by me to add him to the group.

Around that same time, Reece was getting ready for the BAO, and was looking at the task of creating a FAQ document. Given the timing, we had just gotten a draft together. I thought it made sense to have Reece come on board, review the current document, see if it was something he could work with for his event, provide feedback, work with us with the final question selection and complete the document. It takes a tremendous amount of work to generate these documents and unless you have skin in the game, or an event deadline approaching it is tough to get up for the task at hand. So Reece by my judgment was in a unique position to contribute and help.

It had been said from day 1. That Wargamescon, and now by extension FoB and BAO could do whatever they wanted with the final FAQ document, make changes as needed for their events etc. The likelihood is the FAQ document used by all of us will be similar because well we all contributed to the process of it’s development ..

Clearly, I did a poor job of communicating how the document was to be presented. So that is on me and my shoulders are wide enough here. Anyone that has a beef you can direct it my way.


We will move forward with the AdeptiCon version of this document and post it this week.



-Hank

yakface wrote:
You have to talk to Reece about why he titled the post on his site like that.

 yakface wrote:


GW just released new FAQs and removed Outflank from Valks/Vendettas, so we can cross one contentious issue off the list at least!

Breng77 wrote:
So to me it sounds like poor execution of the wording/intent upon release. As the frontline gaming site essentially sells it as the one FAQ for all and to be in common use

 Reecius wrote:

Basically, a group of active TOs got together to meet a need in the community, and took a LOT of their own time to do so.

zedsdead wrote:
So i ask a question and get some sort of "song and dance" answer that doesn't address my original question of whether or not NOVA was asked to participate.

zedsdead wrote:
if you cant handle answering some pretty basic stuff without attacking me, i might suggest you remove yourself from the discussion.

 Hulksmash wrote:
Basically this got presented poorly. If it's not a universal FAQ then I don't see any issues (though I do take umbrage at the tone of some of the posters on both sides). If there is a plan to eventually use a universal FAQ and this is the planning stages then members of the East Coast TO community should be involved.

I can see the frustration from Zed's perspective. He asked a relatively simple question and didn't get a solid answer. No only did he not get a solid answer he got several conflicting answers.

Either way we'll just see where this goes.

 Hulksmash wrote:
@Inquisitor_Malice

To be fair Mike never touted the Nova FAQ as an attempt at a universal FAQ like Reece did with this FAQ. If he had you would have heard an arguably lounder uproar from Nova detractors.

And like I said, if this initiatives goal is a a universal template for GT use across the country then the people who run large, successful, multi-year events should be involved. Be they Mike, Jay, or Mikhaila (example, I doubt he's interested) they are important to the community and inclusion would increase acceptance.

Saying things like not everyone gets to play in the same sandbox sounds elitist and a douchee (sp?). It also seems dismissive and could lead people to the wrong conclusions which isn't something that should be encouraged in this conversation.

 Hulksmash wrote:

@Inquisitor_Malice

To be fair Mike never touted the Nova FAQ as an attempt at a universal FAQ like Reece did with this FAQ. If he had you would have heard an arguably lounder uproar from Nova detractors.

And like I said, if this initiatives goal is a a universal template for GT use across the country then the people who run large, successful, multi-year events should be involved. Be they Mike, Jay, or Mikhaila (example, I doubt he's interested) they are important to the community and inclusion would increase acceptance.

Saying things like not everyone gets to play in the same sandbox sounds elitist and a douchee (sp?). It also seems dismissive and could lead people to the wrong conclusions which isn't something that should be encouraged in this conversation.

SCP Yeeman wrote:
Unfortunately my only issue is the changing of rules from the rulebook, so there is at least 3 reasons not to like it instead of just the 2 you pointed out.

 hippesthippo wrote:
My only problem is with the blatant changes to the way Big Guns Never Tire and The Scouring are played. Simply put, there is absolutely no good reason for it.

Can we please get an answer from someone involved as to why you've decided to completely change the dynamics of those two missions?

If five guys whom are heavily involved in the community want to get together and come to some agreement on answers to frequently asked questions concerning the game we play.. That's fine, and I welcome and very much appreciate that effort. And that seems to depict what a majority of this document attempts to convey.

However, five guys getting together, using their collective influential weight in the community to fundamentally change the way the game is played.. That's just something I can't get behind.

The crux of the argument is this: when so many people get together with such an enourmous influence on the community and the game we play, and decide to straight up change the rules, a majority of people will start playing that way.. and I don't want to be pushed into playing a game, that is fundamentally different from the one I've come to know and enjoy, by a third party.

This isn't Blood Bowl. And I dont want it to become that. Just keep that in mind. You're walking down a slippery slope when you start changing rules.

Cheers,
Ken

 hippesthippo wrote:
My only problem is with the blatant changes to the way Big Guns Never Tire and The Scouring are played. Simply put, there is absolutely no good reason for it.

Can we please get an answer from someone involved as to why you've decided to completely change the dynamics of those two missions?

I would say these rulings will be looked at the closest because of the amount of feedback that has been generated towards them.

 Matthias wrote:
I thought any such organization would be far more influencial if we just made ourselves available to share our experience and knowledge when it came to things of a more logistical nature (hotel contracts, sponsors, web presence, marketing, document production, staffing, terrain, etc), cross-promoted other events through attendance incentive programs and just helped to spread the news about other awesome events.

 hippesthippo wrote:
@Peregrine: As has been stated previously in this thread, GW has had multiple opportunities to fix it if it were indeed a mistake.

 hippesthippo wrote:

I would say these rulings will be looked at the closest because of the amount of feedback that has been generated towards them.

At this point, I think you understand why I've bothered posting. (HINT: It wasn't to generate hatred towards any involved parties). I'll leave it at that.

@Peregrine: As has been stated previously in this thread, GW has had multiple opportunities to fix it if it were indeed a mistake. Also, I was specifically interested in hearing the reasoning behind those making the decisions. I can make educated guesses with the best of them.

There is nothing to indicate that GW wanted them to be denial units. In fact, everything written in the BRB would suggest otherwise. Just because YOU believe something to be common sense, doesn't mean that it is.

 Hulksmash wrote:
Saying things like not everyone gets to play in the same sandbox sounds elitist and a douchee (sp?). It also seems dismissive and could lead people to the wrong conclusions which isn't something that should be encouraged in this conversation.

 yakface wrote:

 hippesthippo wrote:

I would say these rulings will be looked at the closest because of the amount of feedback that has been generated towards them.

At this point, I think you understand why I've bothered posting. (HINT: It wasn't to generate hatred towards any involved parties). I'll leave it at that.

@Peregrine: As has been stated previously in this thread, GW has had multiple opportunities to fix it if it were indeed a mistake. Also, I was specifically interested in hearing the reasoning behind those making the decisions. I can make educated guesses with the best of them.

There is nothing to indicate that GW wanted them to be denial units. In fact, everything written in the BRB would suggest otherwise. Just because YOU believe something to be common sense, doesn't mean that it is.

Posting to say: 'I don't agree with this ruling because...' is great, and what is needed.


Its the second part about: 'A few guys getting together to change the game' canned line that's not constructive and does not serve any purpose except to perpetrate the false myth about what a tournament FAQ is actually for and the motivation behind having one in the first place.

So yes, feedback about the document's rulings based on your personal opinion, questions that have been missed, etc, are all great examples of useful stuff that I would love to see more of.

 hippesthippo wrote:

Fair enough. Sometimes you just wanna make sure people hear you when your voice is effectively minimised to nothing. "This is not a democracy," etc., etc.

 hippesthippo wrote:
Fair enough. Sometimes you just wanna make sure people hear you when your voice is effectively minimised to nothing. As has been said, "this is not a democracy," etc., etc.

Inquisitor_Malice wrote:

Brad - Not everyone get's to have a say in all decisions. It's not elitist, it's simple fact. If you can seriously tell me that the "everyone" gets a say, then you are lying to yourself. Ed may organize the BFS, which is maybe pushing up to 80 people. Multiple events at AdeptiCon alone just might hit that level of attendance. Yet, there are several of those event organizers who are not involved. Are they complaining - No. I completely understand what they are doing and support them 100%. Yet, I don't get to play in the sand box.

Beyond this current initiative, the INAT offered the opportunity you speak of and was adapting to the community concerns. Ed's BFS has run for 2 years under which the INAT could have been used. NOVA could have used it in 2011 as well. However, I know for sure that NOVA and a few other events chose not to use it because they had a different view or in my opinion "knew better". The diehards in support of those events chose that path and now reap what was sewn. That is simple truth.

In the end, some of the team members may have that universal template as an ultimate goal. But that is a personal choice per individual. Not all of them have the goal.

Inquisitor_Malice wrote:

@YAK - yeah, I understand. Some kids need a little scolding to from time to time.

 yakface wrote:
But ultimately what it comes down to is this:

Would you rather attend a tournament having no idea how a judge will rule a certain situation and then, in the heat of the moment when the game is on the line and the judge is called over, you having no idea whether his ruling will effectively cost you the game or not?

Or would you instead prefer to know ahead of time how a judge will rule the situation so you can go in with your eyes open and either discuss the situation with your opponent before the game and decide together to play against the tournament ruling or at worst know ahead of time that it is going to be played not the 'right' way (in your eyes) so you can adjust your play to compensate?


I know some people prefer the former because they are dead set that their opinion on how the rules should be played is simply the 'right' way, but most people seem to appreciate the latter, even if it means they end up playing against what they think is 'right'.

 yakface wrote:

 hippesthippo wrote:

Fair enough. Sometimes you just wanna make sure people hear you when your voice is effectively minimised to nothing. "This is not a democracy," etc., etc.

And I get that, I really do.

But ultimately what it comes down to is this:

Would you rather attend a tournament having no idea how a judge will rule a certain situation and then, in the heat of the moment when the game is on the line and the judge is called over, you having no idea whether his ruling will effectively cost you the game or not?

Or would you instead prefer to know ahead of time how a judge will rule the situation so you can go in with your eyes open and either discuss the situation with your opponent before the game and decide together to play against the tournament ruling or at worst know ahead of time that it is going to be played not the 'right' way (in your eyes) so you can adjust your play to compensate?


I know some people prefer the former because they are dead set that their opinion on how the rules should be played is simply the 'right' way, but most people seem to appreciate the latter, even if it means they end up playing against what they think is 'right'.

 Matthias wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
Saying things like not everyone gets to play in the same sandbox sounds elitist and a douchee (sp?). It also seems dismissive and could lead people to the wrong conclusions which isn't something that should be encouraged in this conversation.

I fail to see how it can be taken that way if Inq. Malice isn't even playing the 'sandbox'. He is just as much an outsider at this point as you are. His point is...you simply cannot involve everyone. No matter who is included, there will be a Zed wondering why so-and-so was left out.

To that point, even in a unified community FAQ there is plenty of room for varying levels of involvement. Not everyone needs to be at the table from the start, not everyone needs to have equal input, and to be simply honest - there are people that just shouldn't be involved for a number of reasons. A unified approach would have to have organic elements, as it would need to grow and adapt as it was more widely accepted.

 hippesthippo wrote:

I'd much prefer the latter, obviously. The issue here is whether or not this is a ruling on a faq, as you suggest, or a rules change. Your answers seem to imply they are one and the same. I disagree.

When a rule is ambigous, it requires a judges ruling, and I'd prefer to know the answer ahead of time. When a rule is crystal clear, there is no need for anything.

I don't need to call a judge over to ask if I hit on 2+ with BS5. It's clearly written in the rules. Is anyone arguing that the situation regarding Big Gunz and Scouring is ambigous in so much as the rules as written are concerned? Not to my knowledge.

 Hulksmash wrote:
@Matthias & Inq. Malice

Context matters. People weren't asking why wasn't everyone involved. People were asking why a few East Coast events weren't involved in what was initially presented as a combined effort from some of the larger events.

 Matthias wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
@Matthias & Inq. Malice

Context matters. People weren't asking why wasn't everyone involved. People were asking why a few East Coast events weren't involved in what was initially presented as a combined effort from some of the larger events.

As I have stated numerous times, this was not the way AdeptiCon supported it being presented. It was never our intention, therefore it is impossible for me to answer your question. I was under the assumption this was made clear to everyone involved - it obvioulsy wasn't, or was simply disregarded. I've made my intentions and stance regarding other events perfectly clear above.

Your beef lies with Reece's intentions and the misinformed perception that all the events involved in these calls wanted what he presented.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Are you guys referring to a group made up of events like this:

http://www.igtcircuit.com/

A group that collectively decided to NOT publish a unified FAQ or have a ranking system...

 Hulksmash wrote:

@Yakface

We've discussed in person how much effort went into the INAT Jon You know I didn't agree with every ruling but that I was cool with the document in general.

I know every person adds time spent per question and that there is a tipping point. But GT's with over 100 GT's aren't actually all that common. Nova, Adepticon, WargamesCon, BOA, Da Boyz, and Feast of Blades pretty much cover the spread. Add in 1-2 advisers such as yourself with experience with the INAT and you're only looking at 7-8 people the drive a lot of the events in the country. That was mostly where I was coming from when it was presented improperly initially (before you started saying it wasn't meant to be a univeral document).

 hippesthippo wrote:
Wow, so less than a week after this came out, GW puts out a PSA asking for all/any faq questions to be sent in. It's becoming more and more obvious that there simply isn't a need for a unified indy faq, as presented in this thread, as it will quickly be made obsolete by the manufacturers of our beloved game. Make no mistake, GW's concern for us tournament gamers is genuine, and that's AWESOME.

If GW continues on their current course, all that will be necessary is a tourney by tourney page -not packet- containing answers to the handful of questions that have popped up in the month or so between official FAQs.

Great news fellas! GW is doing the work for us this edition! Save yourself the time and headaches and spend it instead on running more of the wonderful events y'all have been so gracious to run for us.

 hippesthippo wrote:
From The Shrine of Knowledge;

“Contact Us With Your Questions!

The Games Development team is constantly looking for ways in which we can improve the quality of the material that we provide, and we believe that our Amendments, Errata and FAQ PDFs are an important part of this process. If you have noticed any errors which you believe need fixing, or have encountered any rules for which you require clarifications, we are always grateful for your feedback; please email this to us at Gamefaqs@gwplc.com and we will do our best to answer your questions as quickly and clearly as possible in future updates.”

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I agree Byte. Please please don't change the rules.

muwhe wrote:
Danny,

Every event has rules changes - excluding random elements from the game, the continued use of 5th edition Victory Points, the choosing of Warlord Traits, winning VP/KP missions by X number, inclusion of table quarters as an objective, mission special rules....the great thing about the state of the hobby today is folks have choices. As far as AdeptiCon goes, I'll stand by our choices and the atmosphere we seek to promote for our event and support events that choose a different path... because after all, we are part of a common community and ultimately all doing the same thing here...

Hank

zedsdead wrote:
Subject: Re:40K Independent Tournament FAQ

"Please note, this is a working draft of the FAQ as voted upon by a council of Independent Tournament Organizers and is subject to change. This overrides any previous rulings I have made. This is also the FAQ you will see at many events, including Adepticon, WargamesCon, Feast of Blades, etc. so the rulings here will be in common use."

Im interested how this council of TOs was determined.

Theres an number of big tournament organizers missing from this list. The glaring being the NOVA Open. So i will assume that either MVB either wasnt approached to participate in the creation of the FAQ or more importantly did no agree with the contents. As a T.O. of relativly popular Independant Tournament im pretty curious as to how the council was created and why some pretty big Tournament contributers arent a part of this.

in the quote above it would seem that the intent of this is to be addopted by other T.O.s so as much as i applaud the intent i really question the validity

Breng77 wrote:
See it is that exact attitude that will prevent it from ever happening. The idea that well, my group put together a comprehensive FAQ (which was well done, but very unwieldly for acutally use due to its size) and because not everyone jumped on it, that they deserve what they get.

Breng77 wrote:
See it is that exact attitude that will prevent it from ever happening.

 Inquisitor_Malice wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
See it is that exact attitude that will prevent it from ever happening. The idea that well, my group put together a comprehensive FAQ (which was well done, but very unwieldly for acutally use due to its size) and because not everyone jumped on it, that they deserve what they get.

It wasn't "my group". It was a collection of groups representing a broad area of the population. Just as for instance AdeptiCon is. Our sponsor, volunteer and player base branches wide and far.

Unweildly? - yet criticized just as much for not having enough detail and reasoning. Quite the no win situation.

Size - It was a comprehensive FAQ. Combine all of the GW FAQs, add some decent formatting and see what you get. Everything could be split out of the INAT just as easily if someone took a whole 20 seconds to select "print pages X-Y" for an army. But that was too challenging for some.

Again - misinformation and lack of understanding.

Breng77 wrote:
See it is that exact attitude that will prevent it from ever happening.

Yes - that attitude may prevent it from ever happening. Our feet were held to the fire, which is fine. However, after a while - you see your labors succeed in other areas like the growth of our events. You realize the environment has changed with 6th ed and you don't need this additional headache. With all the previous unjustified vitriol, hate, and drivel spewed, one no longer cares and moves forward with what you know best for the community. So yes - they reap what they sow. Funny, but Yes The Truth Hurts. LOL "oh the irony"

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." - we aren't falling for that trickery again.

 Inquisitor_Malice wrote:

Some people may have mislabeled the intent due to their own wishes and they clarified it. Some critiques are for improvement like the RAW arguments. Good - that's needed. However, this attitude that a standardized FAQ needs to include certain events like NOVA's crew for instance (which both of you brought up). No - no dice. If they wanted a standard FAQ so bad, they could have worked with existing groups, which was a very solid base. However, it was not to be. I can pull up plenty of historical conversations where some (not necessarily you two) have historically been "no so nice" in their critique and plainly only cared for their own image of the game.
.

 Hulksmash wrote:
@Inquisitor Malice
You should probably relax a bit Greg. Your feelings were obviously hurt over the issues the INAT faced 2 years+ ago. It's understandable, you put time and effort into it. But lashing out at the community probably isn't the way to deal with it.

 Inquisitor_Malice wrote:
Some community members need to be told if they are doing wrong. People hide behind a veil to keep the peace. Sometimes that is not good enough.