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.

That's what I think, but ard boyz was using FOC as opposed to units. So I was just checking, as someone running a local tourney up here is planning on drawing on the adepticon stuff for setup (what units are allowed, how things operate, etc.), and several people locally had brought up KP as FOC or unit based off of their ard boyz experience. And I really don't relish having to chase down 3 or 4 little turtled up groups of IG as they spread their platoons around several different distant groups.

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.

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 took care of the first. The second...well, I don't know. I can't think of any major problems with it that could be considered abusing the system, but we'll have to discuss it.

On three, if you don't create a spawn (and as far as I can tell by RAW, its the Daemon player's choice) it doesn't create a kill point. As Jon said, our main principle on that was if an actual unit is created that can contest an objective, its worth a kill point. Since no unit is created, it's not worth a kill point.

dancingcricket wrote:That's what I think, but ard boyz was using FOC as opposed to units.

The 'Ard Boyz Scenario Clarifications specifically mentioned that they were doing kill points differently than presented in the rulebook.

I was wondering why the different treatment for the techmarine on a Thunderfire Cannon (SM 73A.01)
and Chronus (SM 89.01)
Granted the tech is part of the cannon and must come with it, Chronus is an upgrade to a tank.
Beyond that point they both are treated the same if their Cannon/tank is destoryed,both become ICs.
So why does one give an extra KP and the other not?

SeattleDV8 wrote:I was wondering why the different treatment for the techmarine on a Thunderfire Cannon (SM 73A.01)
and Chronus (SM 89.01)
Granted the tech is part of the cannon and must come with it, Chronus is an upgrade to a tank.
Beyond that point they both are treated the same if their Cannon/tank is destoryed,both become ICs.
So why does one give an extra KP and the other not?

This was one of the more debated issues at the end of this FAQ. Chronus does not automatically become an IC if the vehicle is destroyed, only if he survives. In the instance he dies with the vehicle, it is only 1 Kill point as no new unit took to the board that wasnt previously there. The Techmarine however was always there on the board and able to be affected by any number of battlefield events. The only thing the Techmarine got was an additional special rule. With Chronus you have a compltly new model placed on the board with all its own special rules and equipment, much in the same way as a Spore Mine fired from a Tyranid Biovore.

dancingcricket wrote: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?

I have played a game against someone using square bases (for Eldar in this case) and it actually caused problems. Essentially he was able to face his models face-on to mine at the end of his turn, so I was fractionally out of shooting or assault range, then in his turn he would rotate them corner-on to my models, so he was in range for his own shooting or assaults. It was particularly obvious when it came to larger models like the Avatar, where there was nearly half an inch difference between face-on and corner-on.

Sorry if this one is already down for review.

ORK.93H.01 - Reinforced Ram vs vehicles - the Ram rules say the vehicle "treats its front armour as 2 higher than normal when resolving Death or Glory attacks". Applying the armour bonus to ram attacks seems to go well outside the RAW, since in most cases vehicles do not have access to Death or Glory. RAW the only time the front armour bonus should apply in a ram attack is against a walker which elects to attempt a Death or Glory attack, in which case the increased armour should apply both to the walker's attack, and to the hit it receives from the ramming vehicle.

Boss Ardnutz wrote:

dancingcricket wrote: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?

I have played a game against someone using square bases (for Eldar in this case) and it actually caused problems. Essentially he was able to face his models face-on to mine at the end of his turn, so I was fractionally out of shooting or assault range, then in his turn he would rotate them corner-on to my models, so he was in range for his own shooting or assaults. It was particularly obvious when it came to larger models like the Avatar, where there was nearly half an inch difference between face-on and corner-on.

This would be modeling for advantage, which is clearly not allowed. If measurements were made and clearly out of range, then math alone says that I would not have allowed him to have distance when I did not when models ranges are being measured from base, and not something like a turret which can actually chage range slighty, and legally.

Another Space Wolves question.

SW.15N.03 – Q: If a model with a Wolf Tooth
Necklace is joined to a unit that is hit by Lash of
Submission what happens?
A: If the model with the Wolf Tooth Necklace is able to
ignore the ability then he will not move. Since a unit always
moves at the rate of the slowest model, that means the unit
he is part of does not move either. However, the unit still
takes a pinning test and if failed, the model with the
Necklace will ‘[Go] to Ground’ with them [RAW].
Ref: CSM.48.02

In the case of a SW character + bodyguard if all models have a Wolf Tail Talisman (correct wargear I know your going to updated the FAQ) would they all roll separately to cancel lash (or any psychic power for that matter)?

DH/DA/SM LRC Multi-meltas - per GEN.06 these should all be pintle-mounted like the BA version. They all get mounted on the "front" cupola, which sure looks like it spins.

RB.24A.01 - Height should be same as base size, why else are they lying down?

RB.67A.02 and RB.70H.01 - Why destroy the models, aren't these emergency debarkations?

BT.28G.02 - Isn't this RAW?

BT.42B.03 and BA.06N.02 - How, if the vehicle is destroyed, does the frag launcher still work? Why not let them pop smoke too?

BA.06X.01 - Typo: Angle should be Angel

All in all, looks pretty solid. I like where in some cases you took an RAI approach v. RAW.

Homer

RB.67A.01 - this doesn't seem like a necessary rules change. RAW is quite clear that ground transport vehicles can move 18" along a road and still embark/disembark troops. Terrain use is an important element of tactics and roads are an important element of terrain; why remove this from the game?

RB.67A.02 - the FAQ answer is not RAW, it's the opposite of RAW.

Rulebook, p.66 wrote:Models can only voluntarily embark or disembark in the Movement phase, and may not voluntarily both embark and disembark in the same player turn. However, they may embark and then be forced to disembark if their transport is destroyed.

RB.67A.03 - this answer could be clearer. My opponent destroys my vehicle in his shooting phase, and I am forced to Emergency Disembark. Clearly my models cannot do anything for the remainder of the turn - but this is my opponent's turn anyway! Next turn, can I move them again? I think the effect is intended to last until the end of the following player turn, since otherwise it's no penalty at all. However, the rules seem ambiguous to me.

SeattleDV8 wrote:I was wondering why the different treatment for the techmarine on a Thunderfire Cannon (SM 73A.01)
and Chronus (SM 89.01)
Granted the tech is part of the cannon and must come with it, Chronus is an upgrade to a tank.
Beyond that point they both are treated the same if their Cannon/tank is destoryed,both become ICs.
So why does one give an extra KP and the other not?

This one (IMHO) is because of unit types.

Remember that 'units' award KPs. Not just models.

The Thunderfire Cannon is an Artillery unit, and according to pg. 5 of the BRB an artillery 'unit' consists of the "...large weapons and their crews...". The techmarine is the crew for the Thunderfire cannon and therefore they are 1 unit and remain 1 unit despite one of its members gets killed off early and the other part of the unit (its crew) is still alive. True he is an IC and complicates the issue a little but he can not give 2 kps [EDIT: The BGB is very explicit on pg. 91 on that 1 unit is 1 kp] (i.e. 1 for the artillery unit and 1 for being an IC), because the cannon itself does not classify an artillery unit by itself and such killing just the cannon would not give an opponent the kp for destroying an Artillery unit because the unit also consists of the 'crew' which in this case is the techmarine which is still alive. If the Thunderfire cannon was treated as a separate kill point, then all artillery unit "large weapons" must be treated as separate kill points.

Chronus though, I can see.

This is just my opinion why they FAQ'd in such a way, maybe wrong though.

Boss Ardnutz wrote:RB.67A.01 - this doesn't seem like a necessary rules change. RAW is quite clear that ground transport vehicles can move 18" along a road and still embark/disembark troops. Terrain use is an important element of tactics and roads are an important element of terrain; why remove this from the game?

RB.67A.02 - the FAQ answer is not RAW, it's the opposite of RAW.

Yes, both of those points have been noted. If you go back to the first page of the thread you will see a full list of questions that are already under review for the final edition of the FAQ.

RB.67A.02 was a simple mistake and the entire question has been removed, while RB.67a.01 we've actually reversed in the final FAQ after discussing it further.

RB.67A.03 - this answer could be clearer. My opponent destroys my vehicle in his shooting phase, and I am forced to Emergency Disembark. Clearly my models cannot do anything for the remainder of the turn - but this is my opponent's turn anyway! Next turn, can I move them again? I think the effect is intended to last until the end of the following player turn, since otherwise it's no penalty at all. However, the rules seem ambiguous to me.

Nope, the rule is only for the player turn the unit performs an emergency disembarkation, as the rules are very clear that a "turn" in the rules is a "player turn" unless specified otherwise. Although I suppose it can't hurt to add "player turn" into the answer text for that ruling.

And if you're wondering what the point of that rule is, it prevents players from moving their own vehicles to a position so that when they disembark the models onboard some cannot be placed due to enemy models or impassable terrain. They are then allowed to use the 'emergency disembarkation' rules to deploy their models anywhere around the vehicle. If that rule wasn't in place this would allow players to utilize the emergency disembarkation to to disembark their models from the front of their vehicle (for example) and still shoot (and/or assault in the case of a vehicle like a Land Raider) without exposing the rear armor to the enemy.

In other words, because of that rule you're not going to use emergency disembarkation unless you absolutely have to as it prevents the disembarking unit from shooting/running and/or assaulting (if able).

Thanks for the explanation!

What will be your ruling on the SM psychic power Gate of Infinity and if it is useable in CC?

SeattleDV8 wrote:What will be your ruling on the SM psychic power Gate of Infinity and if it is useable in CC?

See SM.57.H02.

I do hope I haven't missed the chance to submit material for review; I present my case on RB.48B.02 here.

Hope it's of some help.

Buzzsaw wrote:I do hope I haven't missed the chance to submit material for review; I present my case on RB.48B.02 here.

Hope it's of some help.

The one thing to consider about the Eldar codex is that at the beginning of the section where they present the different unit types (sorry don't have my codex on me to give a page number), they specifically mention that Autarchs benefit from Exarch powers. As such all Exarch powers fall under the category of being specified that they apply to Autarchs joining a unit and they are certainly a different case than something like 'Dok's Tools' for example.

Thanks for your quick and full answers in both of my questions (I had an earlier query).

yakface wrote:

Buzzsaw wrote:I do hope I haven't missed the chance to submit material for review; I present my case on RB.48B.02 here.

Hope it's of some help.

The one thing to consider about the Eldar codex is that at the beginning of the section where they present the different unit types (sorry don't have my codex on me to give a page number), they specifically mention that Autarchs benefit from Exarch powers. As such all Exarch powers fall under the category of being specified that they apply to Autarchs joining a unit and they are certainly a different case than something like 'Dok's Tools' for example

Thanks for pointing that out, I have found it, and it's not so clear as you may recollect. The relevant rule is found on page 21;

Exarch Powers: Aspect warrior entries also include details of supernatural abilities available to their Exarchs at the points cost in the army list.

Note that the Exarch powers can only ever affect Aspect Warriors and Autarchs in the same squad as the Exarch using them. If an Exarch is removed from play then his abilities are lost.

The problem with considering this to be "specified" in terms of 48rb is that it is far more easily read as an exclusion of Farseers, then an attempt to satisfy 48rb. After all, my point is that the bar for applying special rules to attached ICs has been set low by Codex authors, you tend to see this as disagreeing with that notion?

In any case, I'll address this point more fully in the thread open on the topic.