Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

AdeptiCon happily announces the release of the 40K Tournament Rules FAQ, version 1.0.  In the interest of ensuring the smoothest-possible 40K gaming experience, the AdeptiCon 40K Tournament Rules FAQ will be in effect in all three 40K events at AdeptiCon 2007: the 40K Gladiator, the 40K National Team Tournament, and the 40K Championships.  
 
This document contains answers to many of the vexing rules questions that may arise during gameplay.  40K players planning to attend AdeptiCon are encouraged to familiarize themselves with the FAQ, as this FAQ will be the standard for gameplay during AdeptiCon 2007.
 
http://www.adeptuswindycity.com/files/AdeptiCon_40k_Tournament_FAQ_1.0.pdf
 
As we generated this FAQ independently of the Games Workshop studio, this FAQ is in no way official outside of AdeptiCon 2007.  However, players are encouraged to download the FAQ for their own personal use.  
 
Special thanks go to the netizens of Adeptus Windy City , Dakka Dakka, and Warseer, who provided invaluable feedback on the beta version of the FAQ.  If you have any questions that you think should become a part of the FAQ, please forward those questions to FAQ@adeptuswindycity.org.  
 
Stay tuned for more news about AdeptiCon 2007.  Registration is just around the corner, and version 1.1 of the 40K Tournament FAQ is coming soon, with clarifications on Forge World and other rules.

I see you took my advice and broke down each psychic power and which shooting rules it will follow.  While I don't agree with some of them (FotD and FotA are uber as I had feared, especially with Tigurius) I am glad that you did this so that there will be absolutely no confusion come game time, great job!

- Oaka

Wow, so.. according to the Adepticon FAQ we don't use the rulebook's version of line of sight and use actual line of sight for tanks? I know it makes more sense, but its also pretty clear in the rulebook that all tanks are level 3 and that you can't see over them.. So.. why is it different in the Adepticon FAQ?

Posted By Nuwisha on 09/14/2006 10:20 PM
Wow, so.. according to the Adepticon FAQ we don't use the rulebook's version of line of sight and use actual line of sight for tanks? I know it makes more sense, but its also pretty clear in the rulebook that all tanks are level 3 and that you can't see over them.. So.. why is it different in the Adepticon FAQ?

Because you're not reading the rules right.  You only use size classifications for Area Terrain and ongoing close combats.  All other times you use "true" line of sight.

Please show me where to find that, none of my group has been able to find something that says that in the rulebook.

I wouldn't mind it working that way, just haven't found the parts that say so.

From page 7 of the Warhammer 40,000 4th edition rulebook:

"Be aware though that when you want to see over some terrain features or an ongoing close combat, these heights will become relevant"

Which means that at all other times they are not relevant so you do not use them.

From page 20 of the Warhammer 40,000 4th edition rulebook:

"In some cases, it will be difficult to tell if line of sight is blocked or not, so players might have to stoop over the table for a models eye view"

These are the rules for determining line of sight, in the section of the rules entitled "Line of Sight".

Also from page 20 of the Warhammer 40,000 4th edition rulebook:

"All vehicles, vehicle wrecks, monstrous creatures and artillery, friend or foe block line of sight. A line of sight can still be drawn over or past such models, but not through them. Use a model's eye view to determine if you can see past them."

And from the "Getting The Most From Terrain" article written by Pete Haines in US White Dwarf #308 (Sept. 2005):

"This building can be treated as WYSIWYG. It is simply treated as Impassible Terrain that blocks line of sight (if it actually blocks the "true" line of sight between a shooter and it's target). If you are trying to shoot at a unit behind the building, you have to hunker down and get a model's-eye-view from the firing model to determine if it can actually see it's intended target."

Also you can find numerous discussions on the matter in Dakka's own YTMC forum that supports both myself and the Adepticon FAQ.

Thanks, we always got stuck on the description of models and their size categories. And how a level one can't see past a level two, and a two past a level three..

im still not happy with 2.7.0 for imperial guard medics, but overall its really well done.

Although, in the long run, it won't make much difference, the answer to question 2.69.0 is still absurd. Why can I place a choice then join an IC to it later, but not place the IC first and then join a unit to him after during deployment. It make no sense that you can attach an IC to anything except Fast Attack choices before the game begins.

The Daemonhunter Allies question (6.3.0) is now just a cop-out. Rather than printing out the blatantly contradictory FAQ ruling, you just say to refer to it. This is your FAQ. Why are you making people reference another FAQ? Plus the DH ruling on allies is wrong - the Codex contradicts it - in much the same way as SW Acute Senses being able to re-roll Shrouding in the 1st version of the DH FAQ was wrong.

Good to see the question on Universal Special Rules has been reversed (2.84.0). The original version of this question basically said 'Ignore the USR, use the Codex', which is rediculous.

Question 2.86.0's ruling seems a little drastic, but let me ask you this:

I have a 2000 point Imperial Guard army made up entirley of Imperial Guard choices, with no allies other than a single Grey Knight Brother Captain. I come up against a Siren Prince that also rolled Beam of Slaanesh. If what 2.86.0 says is correct, that DP cannot use Siren, and cannot shoot any Imperial Guard units with Beam of Slaanesh simply because my Brother Captain exists.

I say again, 2.86.0 is a little drastic...

5.9.0 is a multi-part question that remains unanswered. The question asks how a Doom Siren really works, and then asks another question about power fists. You've answered the power fist part, but not the first part. If Doom Sirens really are confusing enough to warrant a whole FAQ question, might be an idea to answer the question.

2.50.0. Unless I'm reading it wrong, the ruling means I have to roll To Hit with the following powers:

• Mass Mutation
• Fortune
• Guide
• Mind War
• Augment
• Eldritch Storm
• Catalyst

Should I go on?

BYE

i agree with the doomsiren question not really being addressed.

if there is a 4th printing supposedly it reads like this,

In close combat a model with a doom siren will always strike in Initiative sequence even if attacking enemy in cover as the waves of sonic energy confuse and repel them. Enemy who strike first regardless of initiative are unaffected

so if they have switched back to the 2nd printing of the rule it will no longer make sense in 4th edition 40k because in 3rd editon 40k, when you assaulted someone in cover they " the models being assaulted" always struck first,

But in 4th edition 40k, models in cover strike at int 10.
so using a doom siren on a champion, simply means the enemy in cover strike at ini 9, while the doom siren model strikes at ini 4. no longer does it strike first as originally intended, then revised for 4th edition with the 3rd printing.

so you get to pay 10 points for a doomsiren that does what a 6 point flamer does....

its clearly a problem that needs addressed. either it allows you to strike first, or it becomes an expensive flamer.

All the Eldar Psychic powers have been left off the chart. With the release of the new codex imminent we did not see an advantage to include soon to be out dated information. The chart will be updated once the new codex is available and cover the Eldar powers with the next FAQ release.

Posted By jeremycobert on 09/15/2006 9:02 AM

if there is a 4th printing supposedly it reads like this,

In close combat a model with a doom siren will always strike in Initiative sequence even if attacking enemy in cover as the waves of sonic energy confuse and repel them. Enemy who strike first regardless of initiative are unaffected



I've only heard that rumor once, and it turned out to be that the guy had bought a brand spanking new Codex, saw that it was different from the 3rd and assumed it was a 4th without checking the title page. It turned out to be a 2nd printing after all.

 

Has anyone seen and confirmed this new 4th printing?

Is anyone else able to get through to either adepticon.org or adeptuswindycity.com? I'm getting empty document returns on all attempts.

no confirmations on this yet, but someone on AWC is claiming that there is a new version dated april/06 but has nothing about it being the 4th printing.

i have not seen it, but i doubt its existence. but GW may have changed their print format to now use a date instead of which print run it was. strange if they did.

Didn't like these before, don't like them now.

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 09/15/2006 8:03 AM

2.50.0. Unless I'm reading it wrong, the ruling means I have to roll To Hit with the following powers:

• Mass Mutation
• Fortune
• Guide
• Mind War
• Augment
• Eldritch Storm
• Catalyst

Aside from the aforementioned thing about Eldar psychic powers...I think we included every power that occurs in the shooting phase.  There may have been something we missed, but I've never heard anyone argue that you had to roll to hit for non-shooting powers.

 

Posted By st.germaine on 09/15/2006 10:13 AM
Is anyone else able to get through to either adepticon.org or adeptuswindycity.com? I'm getting empty document returns on all attempts.

Looks like whatever gremlins were affecting Dakka a couple of months ago are now affecting AWC and AdeptiCon...

Posted By mauleed on 09/15/2006 12:15 PM
Didn't like these before, don't like them now.

which ones are you finding hard to swallow?

I had a quick squizz at them. It seems much more than GW have provided but much less than is needed to answer all the questions.

It's not Adepticon's job to cover for GW's inadequacy, though, so they deserve applause for the effort they have put in. It's a good base for expansion.

And yah, boo, sucks, to GW for their pathetic, slack FAQs.

Blood Angles leaders still count as Space Marine leaders while Space Woves do not. Poor Dark Angels arn't even mentioned. Be consistant or don't bother.

Blood Angels counting as normal marines while Wolves don't is in the official FAQ from GW. I don't see a problem with that, as Wolves are NOT a codex chapter with thier own flavor, whereas Blood Angels are close to a codex chapter.

Complaining that Wolves don't get a commander's Rites of Battle is like complaining that Chaos Space Marines don't get the Chaos Lord's Leadership for Rites of Battle.

Skyth - that's a fluff justification for rules. They should be more consistent in that case, but it really won't matter anyway since if you want to play in their tournaments you have to play with their rules.

All codexes are fluff-based rules...Each one has a different flavor. Wolves have a different flavor than Blood Angels. Don't expect all the rules for one codex to apply to another codex. It's like expecting Tau to have 'And They Shall Know No Fear'.

No, I do not expect Tau to have ATSKNF because the rules do not say they have it. Codices are, or at least should be, a set of logic-based statements that are different due to need of variety and merely coincide by the army's background. Sure, the origin of the army might be background-based, or maybe a special rule or two, but I don't see how fluff dictates marines have a S4 (based on what? how much they can bench? nowhere in the fluff does it state where any of even the basic stats come from except "these guys are kinda powerful, these guys are fast, those guys are tough"). If they were as fluff-based as you say, Marines will have the movie marine rules and tyranids will force you to carry around 1000 models for a 2000-point game. I don't see how you can create any sort of basis on the line between "good fluff-rule relationships" and "bad fluff-rule relationships", so it's as useful as intent.

None of this matters anyway. You play by Adepticon's rules if you want to play in their tournament. At least they're producing FAQs.

And why do the rules not say that they have ATSKNF? Because the person (or persons) who wrote the rules decided that it was against their fluff to have ATSKNF...

"Blood Angels counting as normal marines while Wolves don't is in the official FAQ from GW. I don't see a problem with that, as Wolves are NOT a codex chapter with thier own flavor, whereas Blood Angels are close to a codex chapter."

Close to, as in not. Do or do not Blod Angels have their own codex?

There I was thinking these FAQs were trying to correct/update/fill out all errors/inconsistancies/things left out of GW's errata/faq. My bad for that. Good thing I have no plan to go to Adepticon.

Saved that baby, thanks for all the work. You guys should rub that under the nose of someone at GW.

Greets
Schepp himself

My version of the chaos dex (the third printing) says the doom siren always strike first and is worded I think almost exactly the same way as the old banshee mask and the dark eldar's wych power thing..

I like how it changes every printing.

I like the vast majority of their answers.

So would you say the average gamer has the same authority? I acknowledge that Adepticon's rules are little more than house rules, but you must abide by them in order to play their tournaments.