INAT FAQ Version 2.0 Discussion/Review Thread

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.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Just one quick question.....what does the INAT stand for? The initials, not the organisation!

**Miggidy Mack**

In all fairness, when a person (or group) starts re-wrighting things because of what they feel GW is going to these days, where does that interpretation stop.

Just with Deamonhunters and transports?

As soon as you open the door to such major Codex revisions, good intentions or not, then people come clamouring for the rest. If Deamonhunters were given this, then one will argue that DA, BA and BT (and Chaos Marines for the last example) all deserve the new Storm Shields and Landraider transport capacities.

The above are just examples. Sure some rules get changed, but actual "Rules Change" and "GW FAQ Overrule" are rare in the FAQ presented here.

With Deamonhunters in mind, what counts as a "Deamon" was revised in this FAQ. I believe this to have been a signicant change made in order to give Deamonhunters players some teeth back into their army against the foe they were designed to fight. But now that door was opened, my example of clamouring for more has become evident. Now the ability to transport differant units is being asked for. Its a slippery slope and a line has to be drawn somewhere.

Is the army at all unplayable with this ruling? Not one bit! How playable is the army before the revision of whats a "Deamon"? Not very much. That seems to me to be the line thatw as drawn when ti came to dealing with a massivly outdated Codex.

I see your point, but by that logic Dark Eldar cannot assault if they make a fleet move. Their codex doesn't SPECIFICALLY say they can assault after fleeting. They have a different fleet rule, that was updated in 4th and 5th edition. It's clear that GW wants them to assault after fleeting, but by pure RAW they can't. But since we don't want to guess what GW wants, they can't fleet and assault.

Frankly, the army doesn't need the daemon update as much as the transport update. Daemons effect 2 armies, really only 1 in a way that matters since chaos rarely takes daemons anyway. Grey Knights lost a VERY important scoring unit in 5th edition, the Deep Striking Grey Knights in power armor unit. It no longer scores, just contests. So now the army is slow and unprotected as it tries to take objectives. Allowing a unit of GK's to hop into the Rhino bought by some storm troopers helped to alleviate that.

The only reason GK's can't take transports is because of the 3rd edition Rhino Rush. In the fluff they use transports all the time. The army is far more hampered by 25 point space marines who have no protection other than a weakened night fight and whatever cover is on the table.

Is it unplayabe? No. But the "Daemons" never effected me in a tournament, as I only played ONE daemon player at a tournament since 5th edition, and really the only thing I needed there was my flamers to remove their invulnerable save. I tore right through them. Of the other armies I haven't seen a SINGLE MODEL that's listed as a "daemon" in your faq. I am NOT argueing that point on your FAQ btw, I think that is a perfectly acceptable ruling on what is and is not a Daemon.

I think it's important though to note that we DO have different views on what the FAQ/Errata should be. I think it should A) be done by GW and B) there shouldn't be different rules for the same object.

Now A) is something we would all like and clearly are never going to get because GW has forgotten that players are customers. B) is a simple difference of philosphy. I don't think it's fair to the Tyranid player that GK's can kill his carnifex in one hit and Space Marines can't. He shouldn't be expected to know and adapt to that level of minutia. There shouldn't be 5 different rules for on type of Land Raider (las cannon version). That isn't fair to the people who play AGAINST it. I feel this DOES extend to Storm Shields and the like. GW shouldn't be forcing players to memorize every codex that isn't their own just in case there is some minor difference that screws you. They should instead change the point costs and update old gear.

That's a difference in philosphy though, so I understand why you don't want to go that far in a document such as yours.

**Centurian99**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Just one quick question.....what does the INAT stand for? The initials, not the organisation!

Independent NAtional Tournament FAQ...

**Centurian99**

Miggidy Mack wrote:
I think it's important though to note that we DO have different views on what the FAQ/Errata should be. I think it should A) be done by GW and B) there shouldn't be different rules for the same object.

I would agree with you 100%...except that we simply can't "rationalize" the system the way you're describing, because then we are essentially changing the game to such a radical extent that its no longer WH40K.

In our early FAQ council discussions, I was a strong proponent of rationalizing the system as you describe...but then someone brought up that to be fair, we would also have to change point costs. For example, a SM Librarian taking a storm shield costs 40 points...because it's probably worth about that much to give someone a permanent 3++ save.

Then you have codexes where a storm shield costs 10 points, 5 points, or is essentially free...

**dietrich**

Everytime the Storm Shield issue comes up, think of Black Templar Assault Squads. 10 marines, jump packs, 3+ invul save all around. For what, a 250 point unit? People think that Nob Bikers are bad.......

**Marius Xerxes**

Miggidy Mack wrote:Now A) is something we would all like and clearly are never going to get because GW has forgotten that players are customers. B) is a simple difference of philosphy. I don't think it's fair to the Tyranid player that GK's can kill his carnifex in one hit and Space Marines can't. He shouldn't be expected to know and adapt to that level of minutia. There shouldn't be 5 different rules for on type of Land Raider (las cannon version). That isn't fair to the people who play AGAINST it. I feel this DOES extend to Storm Shields and the like. GW shouldn't be forcing players to memorize every codex that isn't their own just in case there is some minor difference that screws you. They should instead change the point costs and update old gear.

That's a difference in philosphy though, so I understand why you don't want to go that far in a document such as yours.

Funny part is, changes to Wargeer an Transport Capacties were disscussed at first. But I believe that was ruled against because it would make the event to much Adepticon 40k rather then GW 40k. Sure some liberties have been made, and indeed has the illusion of it still being Adepticon 40k, but I feel that simply because of where the FAQ is being used. This FAQ was not made just for the participants of Adepticon, but for all who chose to use it. And it was clearly made with that intent in mind. No person had an personal agenda when working through this, but to come to decisions that fit best with resolving the issue at hand that could be come to by the group.

That said, no one is infallable and nor do anyone in the group claim to be. Thats why this and other threads were started, because there are things that can be re addressed due to one reason or another.

EDIT: Plus everything C99 said right before me.

**yakface**

Just jumping in here a bit. I think Centurian has done a great job of addressing nearly all of the current feedback, but there is one topic I did want to address currently:

And that is the question regarding single-handed/double-handed weapons (especially pertaining to Eldrad's staff).

As codexes continue to be written without armory pages, the definition of what weapons are 'single-handed' and those that are 'double-handed' is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

The majority of weapons now (and this will only continue to grow) are just not classified one way or another. In other words, they are just "weapons".

Instead, the way the rules are written now, a weapon is given such a designation ONLY in order to apply a special rule to it. Another way to look at it is that when the designers now designate a weapon as being "single-handed" it is now essentially given a special rule, kind of like 'melta' or 'gets hot' that now imbues the weapon with a particular rule, in this case the ability to get +1 Attack in close combat when used along with another weapon classed as 'single-handed'.

'Double-handed' weapons are a bit different in that there isn't one core rule for them, but rather any weapon classed as double-handed also contains the rules for not allowing it to be used to gain the +1A bonus right in the text for the weapon itself.

So in short, most weapons in the game are not given a classification of how many hands it takes to use them because it is irrelevant for the rules.

Those weapons that are classified as being 'Single-handed' get to benefit from the +1A bonus rule in the rulebook and those that are classified as being 'double-handed' all contain their own rules for not being allowed to benefit from the +1A bonus rule in the rulebook.

This is the core interpretation premise that the FAQ is operating under.

The only issue with this ruling is that it doesn't address the fact that the rulebook never explicitly states that 'pistols' and 'close combat weapons' are de-facto single-handed weapons, even though it references this concept in parenthesis on page 37 of the rulebook when describing the +1A bonus for having two single-handed weapons.

As such, have made the basic assumption in the FAQ that both 'pistols' and anything called a 'close combat weapon' are indeed always considered to be single-handed weapons unless specified in the weapon's rules otherwise.

This interpretation seems to cover the most situations intuitively and follows as much of the rules as are presented without having to resort to classifying each and every weapon in the 40K codexes that are not classified one way or another.

**DarthDiggler**

Centurian99 wrote:
Inquisitor_Malice wrote:
DarthDiggler wrote:Cent -
You can imagine the amount of headaches simply disappeared.

And the players too.

Just so everyone knows - the AdeptiCon Gladiator runs a little differently with Bill and me. I carry a hot brand because branding is much more fun and personal.

As one of the original proponents of the "melee sportsmanship device" (a la the 2nd edition carnifex, gripped firmly, and used to bash poor sports upside the head), Greg and I are having a disagreement about whether it'll be more effective to carry around hot brands, or whether simply wiring each table with a remote-operated taser would work better.

Bill, you and Greg are running the smoothest of the 3 major tourneys at Adepticon. It has been my experience that the Gladiaor has the fewest rules 'problems' of any of the tourney's. Gladiator players know the rules. Team tourney and Championship players are there to show off their paint jobs and pretty display basis'. Those people usually have no idea what is in the rules and take offense to anyone who tells them otherwise. Not all of them, but a big enough number that the complaints after Adepticon will come predominately from those players in those tourney's.

**shirou**

Centurian99 wrote:swers
WH.18.01B - Overly restrictive definition (does not allow Doom to be canceled)

This one was mine. I looked at the FAQ again, and upon rereading, it seems like the list provided in the FAQ is intended to define "area of effect." Shield of faith may be used by units that are targeted by or included in an area of effect of a psychic power. Since Doom explicitly targets a unit, I think it is clear that Doom can be nullified with Shield of Faith, and that the FAQ does not prohibit this because it is only defining what constitutes an "area of effect."

However, I think my original point -- that the wording is overly restrictive -- still stands. Doom is simply not a good example because it does not have an area of effect. I'll suggest Null Zone instead. Null Zone has a clear area of effect (a circle with 24" radius centered on the librarian), and a sororitas unit inside the area of effect would be affected. Null Zone does not itself kill any models, so it does not qualify as an "area of effect" by your definition, but it makes a unit easier to kill and thus has a real impact (effect) on the unit.

(I am cross-posting a similar comment to the other thread about the same topic as it is now rather unclear to me where I should be posting this comment.)

**Centurian99**

DarthDiggler wrote:
Bill, you and Greg are running the smoothest of the 3 major tourneys at Adepticon. It has been my experience that the Gladiaor has the fewest rules 'problems' of any of the tourney's. Gladiator players know the rules. Team tourney and Championship players are there to show off their paint jobs and pretty display basis'. Those people usually have no idea what is in the rules and take offense to anyone who tells them otherwise. Not all of them, but a big enough number that the complaints after Adepticon will come predominately from those players in those tourney's.

To be fair, I think it's more because the Gladiator is a "winner-takes-all" situation, and its become pretty clear that to rise to the top, you have to perform near-perfectly. Once you get past game 1 and realize that you didn't get max battle points (because its deliberately made fricking tough to do) you can settle down and relax, and just enjoy playing games against some tripped-out, wacked-out #$%#$.

Then again, there was the 2-hr discussion a few years ago about "Waltering"...

**coredump**

TYR.29B.01

Based on the answers, you are treating the spore mines like any other unit. (Can contest, give up KP)

You may want to address if they can Run. By RAW they can. I think the GT ruled that they run in an random direction. Also, can they Run into enemy units and explode?

RB.70H.01

You have a typo. You mean to say "Yes"

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Centurian99 wrote:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Just one quick question.....what does the INAT stand for? The initials, not the organisation!

Independent NAtional Tournament FAQ...

Yespleasemissuspattersonfankyou!

**Clay Williams**

coredump wrote:TYR.29B.01

Based on the answers, you are treating the spore mines like any other unit. (Can contest, give up KP)

You may want to address if they can Run. By RAW they can. I think the GT ruled that they run in an random direction. Also, can they Run into enemy units and explode?

RB.70H.01

You have a typo. You mean to say "Yes"

At the GT we ruled that yes they can run, but have to follow the normal rules for run. You cannot run into an enemy unit.

**Black Blow Fly**

So is the staff considered single or double handed?

G

yakface wrote:
Just jumping in here a bit. I think Centurian has done a great job of addressing nearly all of the current feedback, but there is one topic I did want to address currently:

And that is the question regarding single-handed/double-handed weapons (especially pertaining to Eldrad's staff).

As codexes continue to be written without armory pages, the definition of what weapons are 'single-handed' and those that are 'double-handed' is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

The majority of weapons now (and this will only continue to grow) are just not classified one way or another. In other words, they are just "weapons".

Instead, the way the rules are written now, a weapon is given such a designation ONLY in order to apply a special rule to it. Another way to look at it is that when the designers now designate a weapon as being "single-handed" it is now essentially given a special rule, kind of like 'melta' or 'gets hot' that now imbues the weapon with a particular rule, in this case the ability to get +1 Attack in close combat when used along with another weapon classed as 'single-handed'.

'Double-handed' weapons are a bit different in that there isn't one core rule for them, but rather any weapon classed as double-handed also contains the rules for not allowing it to be used to gain the +1A bonus right in the text for the weapon itself.

So in short, most weapons in the game are not given a classification of how many hands it takes to use them because it is irrelevant for the rules.

Those weapons that are classified as being 'Single-handed' get to benefit from the +1A bonus rule in the rulebook and those that are classified as being 'double-handed' all contain their own rules for not being allowed to benefit from the +1A bonus rule in the rulebook.

This is the core interpretation premise that the FAQ is operating under.

The only issue with this ruling is that it doesn't address the fact that the rulebook never explicitly states that 'pistols' and 'close combat weapons' are de-facto single-handed weapons, even though it references this concept in parenthesis on page 37 of the rulebook when describing the +1A bonus for having two single-handed weapons.

As such, have made the basic assumption in the FAQ that both 'pistols' and anything called a 'close combat weapon' are indeed always considered to be single-handed weapons unless specified in the weapon's rules otherwise.

This interpretation seems to cover the most situations intuitively and follows as much of the rules as are presented without having to resort to classifying each and every weapon in the 40K codexes that are not classified one way or another.

**shirou**

The staff is neither single handed nor double handed. Because it is not single handed, you do not get the bonus attack for an additional close combat weapon.

Centurion, did you see my post near the bottom of page 5?

**DarthDiggler**

As much as I wish Deffrollas wouldn't insantkill Land Raiders as they are apt to do, as long as Bill et. al. says it does that's the way I'll play. 5-6 Battlewagons per team list should do just about right.

**Black Blow Fly**

Doom affects the unit that was targeted. It is not a stretch to say this is the area of effect.

G

shirou wrote:
Centurian99 wrote:swers
WH.18.01B - Overly restrictive definition (does not allow Doom to be canceled)

This one was mine. I looked at the FAQ again, and upon rereading, it seems like the list provided in the FAQ is intended to define "area of effect." Shield of faith may be used by units that are targeted by or included in an area of effect of a psychic power. Since Doom explicitly targets a unit, I think it is clear that Doom can be nullified with Shield of Faith, and that the FAQ does not prohibit this because it is only defining what constitutes an "area of effect."

However, I think my original point -- that the wording is overly restrictive -- still stands. Doom is simply not a good example because it does not have an area of effect. I'll suggest Null Zone instead. Null Zone has a clear area of effect (a circle with 24" radius centered on the librarian), and a sororitas unit inside the area of effect would be affected. Null Zone does not itself kill any models, so it does not qualify as an "area of effect" by your definition, but it makes a unit easier to kill and thus has a real impact (effect) on the unit.

(I am cross-posting a similar comment to the other thread about the same topic as it is now rather unclear to me where I should be posting this comment.)

**Centurian99**

shirou wrote:The staff is neither single handed nor double handed. Because it is not single handed, you do not get the bonus attack for an additional close combat weapon.

Centurion, did you see my post near the bottom of page 5?

Yep. Didn't change the listing because Doom is one of them, and the principle remains the same.

**yakface**

Again guys, you are going around in circles about the tank shocking issue when all the pertinent information has been said time and time and time again. We are fully aware of both sides of the argument and will take them into consideration for the final FAQ. If you'd like to endlessly continue to discuss the issue please do so in another thread.

I will be deleting posts discussing rules issues in this thread in order to keep in accessible to others wishing to add feedback about other issues.

Thanks.

And GBF,

As ruled in the FAQ, the Eldrad's staff is not single-handed.

**CaptKaruthors**

I mean not to interject real life in this situation, but as someone who has experience using a real staff....how in the blue hell could anyone ever justify it being a single-handed weapon? LOL.

Capt K

**Black Blow Fly**

Maybe Eldrad is mutated and has a really big hand.

G

**Ghaz**

shirou wrote:The staff is neither single handed nor double handed. Because it is not single handed, you do not get the bonus attack for an additional close combat weapon.

Where do the rules say that a weapon defaults to being two-handed (or some other undefined state never covered by the rules) if it's not specified to be single-handed? The RAW is that we simply can not answer the question because the rules don't have the answer. Any way you decide to play it is nothing more than a house rule. The INAT FAQ supports this by their use of the [clarification] tag.

**Centurian99**

Centurian99 wrote:FAQ ANSWERS FOR REVIEW:

RB.41C.01 - Potentially Unclear
RB.42O.01 - Interaction with SW Choosers of the Slain
RB.45C.01 - Rules Change or Clarification?
RB.48A.02 - Typo ("Joints")
RB.48B.02 - Exarch Powers?
RB.62B.01 - Needs clarification for vehicle squadrons/artillery.
RB.63F.01 and 02 - Why 1" away from a vehicle?
RB.67A.02 - Contradicts RAW for non-fast vehicles?
RD.67A.03 - Does emergency disembarction end on the players turn it happened on (thus, mainly, only preventing making assault distance longer by closing access points) or lasts for a complete turn (thus being similiar to 4th ed. entanglling)?
RB.67F.01 - Too harsh?
RB.70H.01 - RAW conflict (internal RAW inconsistency).

RB Questions -
RD.67A.03. Does emergency disembarkation end on the players turn it happened on (thus, mainly, only preventing making assault distance longer by closing access points) or lasts for a complete turn (thus being similiar to 4th ed. entanglling)?
Can a psyker who is able to use "two(or more) psychic powers per turn" use the same one twice?
Review IC/Wargear/"his unit"/special rule interaction
Review ramming/tank shock interaction.

BA.06DD.01 - RAW?
BA25A.01 - Mounting for whirlwind launcher?

BT.22B.04 - Default behavior for Pods? (applies to all Drop Pod Qs)
BT.29A.01 - RAW answer seems counter-intuitive.

CD.52D.01 - Why not shooting attacks?

CSM Questions - "Units of Summoned Lesser Daemons do not use up any force organization chart selection, but are otherwise treated as Troops units." Scoring units?

DA.27C.01 - By RAW, Ravenwing Land Speeders from Attack Squadrons should be scoring units.
DA Questions - Are Ravenwing Landspeeders from an Attack Squadron a Scoring Unit http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/225574.page

DE Questions - How does night shield interact with melta weapons +d6?

DH.08G.01 - Contradicts rulings changing definition of Daemon (DH.20Q.01)
DH.30A.01. WH FAQ fixes this moment with WH vehiecles.
DH.31A.01 - Typo
DH Questions - Can Inquisitors without psychic powers ally with Black Templars

ELD.31A.01 - Banshee Exarch Acrobatic power
ELD.35G.01 - Contradicts GW FAQ
ELD.51D.01 - No evidence either way that staff of ultramar is either 1 or 2 handed.
ELD Question - Can Eldrad use his shuriken pistol and witchblade for +1 attack, or does 2 special weapons take precedent?
ELD Question - Is a power lance treated as a CCW when charged?

IG.38.01 - Command Platoon Infiltrate?
IG.47.01 - Does codex scout rule supercede USR scout rule?
IG Question - Is a hunting lance a 1 or 2-handed weapon?

ORK.55D.01 - Deff Rollas and Ramming - Is a tank shock?

NEC.21E.02 - Possible Contradiction - Special movements on fleeing unit that doesn't go towards the board edge.
Necron Questions:
WBB vs. Sweeping Advance (or any other way of removing models that doesn't rely on wounds.)
Can Wraiths/Scarabs run?

SM.142D.01 - Multi-melta shoudl be pintle-mounted

SW.GEN.01 - Add Land Speeder Storm
SW Codex GEN.02 - points for Rhinos and Razorbacks?
SW.06A.02 - Effect of Storm Caller when assaulting targets in the open.
SW.07.02 - Old & Wise & Seize the Initiative (and Emperor's Tarot and other ways of re-rolling choosing who goes first)
SW.10A.03 - Berserk Charge and Counter-Attack: +2 attacks or +2 attack
SW.15N.01, SW.15N.01, SW.15N.01 - Wolf Tooth Necklace should be Wolf Tooth Talisman
SW.15G.01/RB.48A.02 - Contradictory Answers

Tyranid Question: Can Spore Mines Run?

WH.18.01B - Overly restrictive definition (does not allow Doom to be canceled)

APOC.91C.02 - No ordnance Damage Table
Apocalypse Question: What happens if a walker is in assault with a Gargantuan Creature/Superheavy, and the walker becomes immobilezed?

Again, if you start a debate on any questions in the INAT FAQ, please post a link here so I can add it into the list and link the thread directly.

**Trekari**

yakface wrote:
Again guys, you are going around in circles about the tank shocking issue when all the pertinent information has been said time and time and time again. We are fully aware of both sides of the argument and will take them into consideration for the final FAQ. If you'd like to endlessly continue to discuss the issue please do so in another thread.

I will be deleting posts discussing rules issues in this thread in order to keep in accessible to others wishing to add feedback about other issues.

Thanks.

What a tremendous mistake that would be, to assume that you already have all the pertinent information and to delete other member's arguments and ideas about ANY particular issue. Your nine-member council is capable of coming up with every possible position and argument about a given topic? Other members have nothing that might be relevant to discuss or think about during your review?

That is a rather arrogant stance to take, and frankly, is insulting to the Dakka community. On one hand you admit that "hey, we might've gotten some of these wrong, check it over for us" and on the other hand you claim "we are fully aware of both sides of the argument." If you were fully aware of both sides, then why ask us to review anything? Obviously if you have ALL the information, then you already got all the answers right.

If you want to ask people to let something drop, that's fine. But to delete the posts under the assumption you already know all the arguments we can possibly bring...insulting.

EDIT: I see you've already deleted the posts, so I am now simply going to stand by my position that what you did was arrogant and insulting to any member who spent any amount of time posting a thought regarding your FAQ. Since you obviously don't need anyone's assistance with error-checking your work and offering interpretations about the rules, I suggest you simply finalize the INAT FAQ as-is.

The rest of us clearly have nothing to contribute in any way to this document.

**Centurian99**

Trekari, I asked that in-depth rules discussion be in another, dedicated thread. Both to aid people in reading this thread and posting items for review, and to give those in-depth discussions the focus and attention they deserve.

**Trekari**

Then perhaps those posts should have been moved, instead of simply deleted.

Perhaps the post by Yakface shouldn't have implied such intellectual superiority that all the arguments for and against things have already been made, suggesting that the community can come up with nothing new that the ruling council hadn't already thought of.

**dietrich**

Maybe you should give the guy who owns the site some slack and thank him for all the time and effort he puts into the site and the FAQ.

**Saldiven**

Trekari, you really think his post was arrogant?

The second question I have is this: Do you really think that any of your points on the tank shock/ram issue in this thread haven't been brought up by either yourself or someone else in any of the other threads either here on this site or on other sites like BOLS or Warseer discussing the same topics?

Personally, I have read a disgusting number of pages of posts on this and several other sites discussing this debate. I have not seen an new position or interpretation brought on the subject by anyone in weeks. In every thread on the subject, within a page or two, the debate devolves into mere repetition of the same information already provided and name calling. That is the point that Yakface was making.

See below for other threads that have already beaten this thing to death:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/223850.page

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/222055.page

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/220185.page

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/214382.page#331378

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/216779.page#359922

Now, if anyone can come up with a position or interpretation that is substantially different from all of these posts already written on the subject, I'd be happy to hear it.

**dancingcricket**

Few questions as I didn't see them covered specifically.

Kill Points - throughout the FAQ it seems that you tend to focus more toward VP than on KP. Since your also putting this document forward as something other tournament organizers can use as a reference, can there be a bit of clarification on KPs. Specifically how guard handle KP's. Is a full infantry platoon worth 1KP, or 6? If it is in there already, if you could point out where to find it, I'd appreciate it.

Bases - I saw the bit in there about using the size base the model comes with, but I was curious if there's an official ruling for shape? Playing daemons, and part of my purpose in starting them was so that I could have a fantasy as well as a 40K army and only have to purchase the one. So, since the daemon models come with both square and round bases, is it alright to have them on square bases?

CD.73A.03 - Boon of mutation - it says Chaos spawn created by Boon of Mutation are worth a KP, if you don't have a Chaos Spawn model, does your opponent immediately gain a KP as if they'd killed it, or is it just considered a normal casualty of your shooting?

**Marius Xerxes**

dancingcricket wrote:Few questions as I didn't see them covered specifically.

Kill Points - throughout the FAQ it seems that you tend to focus more toward VP than on KP. Since your also putting this document forward as something other tournament organizers can use as a reference, can there be a bit of clarification on KPs. Specifically how guard handle KP's. Is a full infantry platoon worth 1KP, or 6? If it is in there already, if you could point out where to find it, I'd appreciate it.

I can already answer this part for you. In the BRB where it describes "Kill Points" it says that you get 1 for every enemy "unit" killed. An IG Infantry Platoon is made up of 3 to 6 seperate "units" that just happen to take up one FOC slot and deploy together. Therefore each "unit" is worth 1 KP.