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.

Fabricator General wrote:mmmm..... are you serious? Are you really serious? I'm supposed to read your mind and get all the facts that way? I'm only have what you said as a reference. If you want to share all you have, then I'll duly regard your comment.

Hopefully you didn't give that guy a good sports score either for being such a liar.

Nope - you are not supposed to read minds. However, before calling someone out, it may not be a bad idea to get the full story on a private PM as to why something happened. A call out will typically receive one back, especially if all the information is not available.

Also, changing for AdeptiCon is not the sole purpose. It's to bring balance to an issue that does not make sense. For instance, following the 1" rule by RAW I could setup my entire army so that a stealer shock list (all genestealers) could not cause a single casualty for the entire game. The player on the other side would just have to sit there, move his pieces, but could never charge.

As far as sportsmanship - check out how it is handled in England. I like the system actually better than the US. It's just sad that game had to happen because all of my other games were great against really fun players. Hell, I keep in contact with three to four UKers and can't wait to go back to the GT (most likely in 2009).

Well Yak keeps asking for constructive criticism, so I'll repeat mine:

stelek wrote:ELD.24C.01 – Q: If an Eldar unit finishes its fall
back move within 12” of a friendly Avatar (or he
moves within 12” of a unit that is falling back)
does the unit immediately regroup?
A: Yes, the unit immediately regroups but does not make
a consolidation move [rules change].

Mentioned before. Here's the problem. I shoot Unit A. Unit A breaks. Under the current rules, if I kill the Avatar dead on my turn--on your turn, your unit is still broken. It's a free regroup Eldar don't currently get--why is this being added? Don't tell me because people are too stupid to keep track of what units are broken or not!

This one is unnecessary. A unit that is falling back should be in coherency. If they get within 12" of an Avatar, they become fearless, and fearless units don't fall back. Since they are a fearless unit, regrouping is null. They are in coherency, fearless, and they aren't broken or falling back. Move on normally. Why drag regrouping into things? (if the unit is for some strange and rare reason out of coherency, they simply must "move into coherency as soon as possible, or not be able to shoot or assault if they cannot." as indicated by the BGB. More streamlined, by the RAW, and with less potential for side effects than your interpretation.

ELD.39.02 -- Q: Can either Heavy Weapon
crewman fire the weapon regardless of where
they are in the unit?
A: Yes, the position of the gun is immaterial. Either
crewman (but not both at the same time) may fire the
weapon [RAW]. However, both team members must
remain within 2” of each other during the game where
possible [rules change].

First of all, your "clarification" isn't RAW, so that's just wrong. The RAW says "one crewman." One. It does not say "either" or "both." As for the platform, well, you could run around the table making "zoom zoom" noises and making like you're piloting a guardian platform around your opponent's head, because it's completely immaterial. You got that part right. (actually, it has to stay in coherency with at least one crew, but you get the point. It can "teleport" to meet this requirement. That doesn't mean that either crewman can fire it before one crewman dies, however.) I'm also highly suspicious of any assertion that you have met enough Eldar players to establish a "majority" for this rule. I've seen them claim the entire gamut of interpretations, and none of them in my experience has won out. (same with IG players and their weapon teams). If it clarifies things at all, I have a good friend who just got into the hobby and who had no previous motivation for bias, and he assumed that he should simply mark the casualty on the base for the "loader," and the loader has a las rifle. The gunner fires the gun, and if he bites it you're S.O.L. None of the switching weapon business.

ColonelEllios wrote:There have been long discussions on the guardian platform rule. To sum up the way I see it: The platform rule states that a model is armed with a weapon. Since a model with a special weapon (I use the analog of a space marine w/ heavy bolter) cannot "swap" that weapon to another model, neither then can a guardian "armed" with the platform gun swap at a later time, unless one of the crew is killed, as detailed by the rule. The long and short of it being that once a gunner fires the weapon, he is the "one" guardian that may use the weapon until such time as a crewman becomes a casualty.

I think your ruling of "keep them within 2" " adds an extraneous qualifier that doesn't need to be there; and fails to address the point that the question can be resolved by looking at the core rules as I detailed above, as well as still allowing possible abuses with some unique terrain scenarios. And while yes, you were consistent in the ruling between platforms and IG weapon teams, both of your rulings are flawed in this basic precept. Saying that one of the weapon team retains his las rifle, and then later saying that he can "switch" to the heavy weapon, without precedent in the rules (as there is with the platform entry), once again flies in the face of the written rule.

Your current interpretation of this rule still allows for essentially "splitting" the field of fire for a weapon if the gunners are placed on either side of a long, thin terrain piece of the corner of a quadrate terrain piece. My interpretation ensures that the line of fire is drawn from one gunner consistently, turn after turn, which is much less frustrating for your opponent.

Tau SMS works a bit like the Eldar gun crew (it can fire out of one pod or the other) except as it ignores LOS the main advantage is changing the range at which it can fire.

The disadvantage of nominating a specific crewman to fire the weapon is that you need to track it from then on.

I see no particular problem with letting the two Eldar take turns firing. I do not think your interpretation of the phrase "one crewman" is correct.

However, people can argue about these individual points for ever, and have done so in YMDC, often failing to come to a conclusion that satisfies everyone. (In other words, neither side is convinced by the argument put forward by the other.)

The value of the FAQ is that it provides a definitive answer to such queries. There are no doubt many rulings in it which someone is not going to like. I dare say if I read all through it I will find some stuff I disagree with. But that is the price you pay for resolving contentious issues.

I want to thank you ColonelEllios for taking the time and effort to explain your points. This is exactly the kind of constructive criticism I am looking for, in that it clearly explains why you think a ruling should be altered.

While I disagree with you on what the RAW say regarding the Grav platform I do want you to know that I understand where you are coming from and I can assure you that will be one of the rulings that will be most certainly discussed before the FAQ is updated.

When it comes to the Eldar Avatar and regrouping the difference in what you are saying and what is in the FAQ is ultimately very, very slim. although if the ruling is changed to the way you suggest then a sentence would need to be added to make it clear that the unit cannot move again that movement phase if they already made a fall back move (which would be a rules change). Otherwise you would have a situation where a unit essentially moves twice in the same movement phase (falls back within 12" of the Avatar, ceases to fall back and then moves normally).


Stelek:

I know that you are still trying to help, but the feedback you are giving isn't constructive in that you still aren't saying anything except that you think the rulings are meddling and worthless. Worse, it seems as though you are giving examples of rules that do not have a clear RAW solution (as far as I read them) so your accusations of meddling seem particularly strange since I wouldn't even know how to play those situations without coming up with my own take on the rules and hoping my opponent agrees with me.

If you really would like to help I'd urge to ignore posting comments about rulings you think are meddling or stupid and instead focus on presenting rulings you feel are inconistent with other sections of the FAQ (and exactly why) and instances where a ruling will affect a unit or special rule in a way that we may not have considered.

Stelek wrote:

RB.26.03 – Q: If a unit has “mixed armor” is the
wound allocated via the “torrent of fire” rule
resolved before allocating the rest of the wounds
on the unit? If so, can this casualty potentially
change which armor type is the majority?
A: A “torrent of fire” wound is fully resolved before
moving onto the mixed armor wound allocation. This
casualty can indeed alter the majority armor composition
of the unit [clarification].

Totally worthless meddling. Why do Black Templars get dicked over for no apparent reason? Hey I shot your 6 3+/5 4+ squad, hmmm put a wound on your 3+ save guy and if you fail; all my heavy bolter shots go into your 4+ guys and WIN for me! Oh yeah, all the bolter shots--those can go on your 3+ save guys.

The rules don't specify one way or another how torrent of fire works when the mixed armor rule is being used. Your guess is as good as mine but the torrent rules do seem to specify that the wound is allocated and resolved immediately before other wounds are allocated. This simply cannot be "meddling" because there is no clear way to play presented in the rulebook.

RB.76E.02 – Q: When using the Mixed Armor rules,
if an Armor save set contains models with
differing Invulnerable saves (or has Invulnerable
Saves that are better than the unit’s cover save),
how are the wounds divided up within the single
Armor save type?
A: They must be further divided within the Armor save
type by using the standard Mixed Armor procedure, but
treat differing Invulnerable saves (or Invulnerable saves
that are better than the unit’s cover save) as different
save “types” for this allocation. The player may choose
which invulnerable save type to begin allocating wounds
to [rules change].

More meddling. My Dark Eldar Dracon with Warriors are in the OPEN. I get shot at long range with a lascannon. Well, I don't have a invulnerable save for the warriors but I *do* have a invulnerable save on my dracon. Gee, I'll take my 2+ save. Don't have heavy bolters, just have lascannons? Well good luck attritioning my unit away. The consequences of unintended action seems pretty clear to me.

This ruling clearly specifies only when using the "mixed armor" rules which are only utilized if the unit has differing ARMOR saves. The QUESTION is when a unit has differing invulnerable saves and how many times each invulnerable type is able to be used. Again, the rules do not present anything close to resembling a clear path on how to play this issue so this CANNOT be meddling and furthermore your example is completely incorrect as if all the DE models have the same armor save they will not be following the mixed armor rules and would not utilize this ruling.

RB.85.02A – Q: Are an Independent Character’s
accompanying Wargear models worth any Victory
Points for being destroyed?
A: Unless specified otherwise, no. Only the status of the
actual character model at the end of the game matters
for Victory Point purposes [rules change].

Gee really? Tau players with drones are getting a major boost. Obviously since it's written into the rules, GW didn't really mean it and somehow it's not "clear" enough for all of us poor Tau players.

This question is clearly about ICs, not upgrade characters with drones. At the end of a game how do you determine VPs for an IC with drones? The only thing that makes any sense is to use the IC damage table for the total cost of the character (which includes the cost of the drones). I will try to clarify this question/ruling to make sure it makes more sense in the updated FAQ.

BA.26C.04 – Q: Do Inquisitorial Mystics allow free
shots at units arriving by Drop Pod?
A: Yes. The shooting is resolved after the Drop Pod lands
and the passengers disembark. Either the Drop Pod or
the disembarked unit may be the targeted, but not both
[rules change].

Just pointing out the inequality of the FAQ here. Mystics get screwed, and can't kill drop pods along with their cargo (for whatever game breaking reason this is) but you can fire psykers like machine guns at infiltrating units? Yeah, ok.

This ruling was made because at one point GW issued an unofficial ruling on the matter on their forums and because of that most people seem to play that way as indicated in this poll I ran:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/190026.page

CSM.54.03 – Q: Can Typhus use his Force weapon
ability on multiple models in the same assault
phase?
A: Yes, but note that the instant-kill ability is not tested
for until after all wounds inflicted by Typhus are allocated
to enemy models [RAW].

I mentioned this one earlier, but every time I see it it makes me gag. Typhus can kill 4 Carnifexes in a turn? Gee, GW didn't clearly restrict force weapon attacks or anything.
I'd be pissed if Typhus got into my army and killed all my characters because this ruling makes him powerful beyond the pale.

All ICs can only direct their attacks at a single unit, so Typhus could only ever kill one Carnifex in combat in a round. Even if Typhus is fighting a unit of multi-wound creatures since whole models have to be removed when assigning wounds it is a pretty rare case when Typhus would be able to wound multiple models but leave them both alive to be able to use his Deamon weapon's ability.

ELD.24C.01 – Q: If an Eldar unit finishes its fall
back move within 12” of a friendly Avatar (or he
moves within 12” of a unit that is falling back)
does the unit immediately regroup?
A: Yes, the unit immediately regroups but does not make
a consolidation move [rules change].

Mentioned before. Here's the problem. I shoot Unit A. Unit A breaks. Under the current rules, if I kill the Avatar dead on my turn--on your turn, your unit is still broken. It's a free regroup Eldar don't currently get--why is this being added? Don't tell me because people are too stupid to keep track of what units are broken or not!

The problem is (as I've said many times now to different people) "falling back" is both a movement and a state the unit is stuck in (usually) until it regroups. Now, the rules for being Fearless say that such units "never have to fall back". Is this rule referring only to "fall back" movement or to the state of "fall back"? The answer is we don't know (which is why a ruling is needed).

For example, say a unit Falls back to within 12" of an Avatar. In the Assault phase, they are within 6" of an enemy and the Eldar player wants to charge, can he? If no, why? Is it because the unit is still "falling back"? If so, this breaks the Fearless rule which states they "never have to fall back".

ELD.49A.01 -- Q: Can Veil of Tears ever be nullified
or cancelled?
A: No. See RB.52.07.

You can't say 'NO' in the same FAQ you said 'YES'. :(

I was very, very specific and clear on this ruling. The power cannot be canceled or nullified but some rare units have the ability to IGNORE its effects. Those are two very different concepts. I'm honestly not sure how I could make it any clearer but if you have any suggestions I would be more than willing to listen.

I am wondering what effect 5th edition will have on this here FAQ.

- G

Most of the general rules questions will be going away, since 5th edition is quite clear now on questions like that. The ruleset is definitely tighter than 4th. 5th edition can't come soon enough for me. Although the =I= books will really start to break down once 5th edition arrives. So much useless wargear/ abilities at that point.

Capt K

My responses in BOLD.

Stelek wrote:RB.26.03 – Q: If a unit has “mixed armor” is the
wound allocated via the “torrent of fire” rule
resolved before allocating the rest of the wounds
on the unit? If so, can this casualty potentially
change which armor type is the majority?
A: A “torrent of fire” wound is fully resolved before
moving onto the mixed armor wound allocation. This
casualty can indeed alter the majority armor composition
of the unit [clarification].

Totally worthless meddling. Why do Black Templars get dicked over for no apparent reason? Hey I shot your 6 3+/5 4+ squad, hmmm put a wound on your 3+ save guy and if you fail; all my heavy bolter shots go into your 4+ guys and WIN for me! Oh yeah, all the bolter shots--those can go on your 3+ save guys.

yakface wrote:
The rules don't specify one way or another how torrent of fire works when the mixed armor rule is being used. Your guess is as good as mine but the torrent rules do seem to specify that the wound is allocated and resolved immediately before other wounds are allocated. This simply cannot be "meddling" because there is no clear way to play presented in the rulebook.

I disagree. Read the BBB again please, page 24 paragraph 9 followed by the Mixed Armor rules Page 76, part 3. I distinctly see "first". Each 'set' is clearly defined in part 5, with a very clear example of BLACK TEMPLARS which this ruling invalidates. It isn't meddling? It seems clear to me.

Stelek wrote:RB.76E.02 – Q: When using the Mixed Armor rules,
if an Armor save set contains models with
differing Invulnerable saves (or has Invulnerable
Saves that are better than the unit’s cover save),
how are the wounds divided up within the single
Armor save type?
A: They must be further divided within the Armor save
type by using the standard Mixed Armor procedure, but
treat differing Invulnerable saves (or Invulnerable saves
that are better than the unit’s cover save) as different
save “types” for this allocation. The player may choose
which invulnerable save type to begin allocating wounds
to [rules change].

More meddling. My Dark Eldar Dracon with Warriors are in the OPEN. I get shot at long range with a lascannon. Well, I don't have a invulnerable save for the warriors but I *do* have a invulnerable save on my dracon. Gee, I'll take my 2+ save. Don't have heavy bolters, just have lascannons? Well good luck attritioning my unit away. The consequences of unintended action seems pretty clear to me.

yakface wrote:
This ruling clearly specifies only when using the "mixed armor" rules which are only utilized if the unit has differing ARMOR saves. The QUESTION is when a unit has differing invulnerable saves and how many times each invulnerable type is able to be used. Again, the rules do not present anything close to resembling a clear path on how to play this issue so this CANNOT be meddling and furthermore your example is completely incorrect as if all the DE models have the same armor save they will not be following the mixed armor rules and would not utilize this ruling.

You do know DE players can (and I do) toss an incubi in as a power weapon squad leader since this unit cannot have a sybarite and the IC is vulnerable to CC death? Incubi have a 3+ save. I deleted the mention of it since I figured you'd know this is one of the few other 'mixed armor' save units in the game that doesn't involve wargear. My mistake.

You do realize since you don't specify that the majority of the 'invulnerable' saves needs to be used, you allow players to abuse this ruling? Here's an example: Two Lash Sorcs in a squad of Thousand Sons. They all have a 3+ armor save, but the Sons have 4+ and the Sorcs have 5+. When you hit the squad with 2 plasma shots, I might as well take them both on the Sorcs--more likely to get wounded, but I don't actually LOSE any model which for Chaos is very important. GW made it crystal clear with the mixed armor save ruling how you should take hits. Why are you meddling and allowing players to choose which invulnerable save to take??

Stelek wrote:RB.85.02A – Q: Are an Independent Character’s
accompanying Wargear models worth any Victory
Points for being destroyed?
A: Unless specified otherwise, no. Only the status of the
actual character model at the end of the game matters
for Victory Point purposes [rules change].

Gee really? Tau players with drones are getting a major boost. Obviously since it's written into the rules, GW didn't really mean it and somehow it's not "clear" enough for all of us poor Tau players.

yakface wrote:
This question is clearly about ICs, not upgrade characters with drones. At the end of a game how do you determine VPs for an IC with drones? The only thing that makes any sense is to use the IC damage table for the total cost of the character (which includes the cost of the drones). I will try to clarify this question/ruling to make sure it makes more sense in the updated FAQ.

Yes, it IS clear to me but it can be USED against players because it is a far reaching ruling with real consequences. This is why I call it 'meddling'.

Stelek wrote:BA.26C.04 – Q: Do Inquisitorial Mystics allow free
shots at units arriving by Drop Pod?
A: Yes. The shooting is resolved after the Drop Pod lands
and the passengers disembark. Either the Drop Pod or
the disembarked unit may be the targeted, but not both
[rules change].

Just pointing out the inequality of the FAQ here. Mystics get screwed, and can't kill drop pods along with their cargo (for whatever game breaking reason this is) but you can fire psykers like machine guns at infiltrating units? Yeah, ok.

yakface wrote:
This ruling was made because at one point GW issued an unofficial ruling on the matter on their forums and because of that most people seem to play that way as indicated in this poll I ran:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/190026.page

Sadly, what Gav said 5 years ago is about as meaningless as what Gav says now.
He wasn't fired off into Fantasy for nothing.

That said, I've seen alot of arguments about this. You know what the real problem is for players?

Normal transports you get shot out of, but the explosion occurs *before* you get out so there's no double jeopardy.

What happens with this anti-deep strike defense is, you arrive/disembark and then not only do you get shot but you might get hurt by your drop pod blowing up.

This isn't FAIR, but it is RAW.

Of course, alot of players say drop pods are unfair--but that's also 'too bad' as the RAW allows it.

CSM.54.03 – Q: Can Typhus use his Force weapon
ability on multiple models in the same assault
phase?
A: Yes, but note that the instant-kill ability is not tested
for until after all wounds inflicted by Typhus are allocated
to enemy models [RAW].

I mentioned this one earlier, but every time I see it it makes me gag. Typhus can kill 4 Carnifexes in a turn? Gee, GW didn't clearly restrict force weapon attacks or anything.
I'd be pissed if Typhus got into my army and killed all my characters because this ruling makes him powerful beyond the pale.

yakface wrote:
All ICs can only direct their attacks at a single unit, so Typhus could only ever kill one Carnifex in combat in a round. Even if Typhus is fighting a unit of multi-wound creatures since whole models have to be removed when assigning wounds it is a pretty rare case when Typhus would be able to wound multiple models but leave them both alive to be able to use his Deamon weapon's ability.

Sigh. Fine, call them Meganobz with Cybork bodies. Expensive, but popular in certain crowds.

Typhus putting out 5 hits would require each Meganobz to roll seperately, would it not? Then everyone who fails his 5+ save isn't removed per the multi-wound model rule, because we have to wait and see if he can blow the minds of all the Nobs that fail their 5+ save. Or you'd work it differently, and just kill 2 and 1/2 nobs? If it's this way (2 and 1/2 nobs) then why is this ruling even in effect? Under what circumstances CAN Typhus use his power more than once?? If he can't, why have it in the FAQ in the first place?

ELD.24C.01 – Q: If an Eldar unit finishes its fall
back move within 12” of a friendly Avatar (or he
moves within 12” of a unit that is falling back)
does the unit immediately regroup?
A: Yes, the unit immediately regroups but does not make
a consolidation move [rules change].

Mentioned before. Here's the problem. I shoot Unit A. Unit A breaks. Under the current rules, if I kill the Avatar dead on my turn--on your turn, your unit is still broken. It's a free regroup Eldar don't currently get--why is this being added? Don't tell me because people are too stupid to keep track of what units are broken or not!

yakface wrote:
The problem is (as I've said many times now to different people) "falling back" is both a movement and a state the unit is stuck in (usually) until it regroups. Now, the rules for being Fearless say that such units "never have to fall back". Is this rule referring only to "fall back" movement or to the state of "fall back"? The answer is we don't know (which is why a ruling is needed).

For example, say a unit Falls back to within 12" of an Avatar. In the Assault phase, they are within 6" of an enemy and the Eldar player wants to charge, can he? If no, why? Is it because the unit is still "falling back"? If so, this breaks the Fearless rule which states they "never have to fall back".

True. Now tell me, Tyranid players have to wait till their next turn to gain Synapse (aka Fearless).

Phil Kelly wrote the Tyranid AND Eldar Codexes--why do the Eldar get Fearless on YOUR turn, but my Gaunts only get it on MY turn?

ELD.49A.01 -- Q: Can Veil of Tears ever be
or cancelled?
A: No. See RB.52.07.

You can't say 'NO' in the same FAQ you said 'YES'. :(

yakface wrote:
I was very, very specific and clear on this ruling. The power cannot be canceled or nullified but some rare units have the ability to IGNORE its effects. Those are two very different concepts. I'm honestly not sure how I could make it any clearer but if you have any suggestions I would be more than willing to listen.

They aren't 'very different concepts'. They are all extremely similar. That's besides the point. Why are non-active powers being abrogated by a item (Null Rod) which says any power that targets or is in the area of effect ceases to function. You are extending 'area of effect' to include non-passive powers, but again, by meddling you aren't making the matter clearer for anyone. What's to stop people from saying you can't use enhance because we're in close combat with the Null Rod? Nothing, you've opened the door to allowing players to say 'area of effect' is virtually anything. I don't see why (under this ruling) that Null Rod Inquisitors attached to a heavy bolter squad won't bypass Conceal. Which is sure as hell isn't how anyone *I* know plays it.

======================

Have you spent any time playtesting these rules? I don't think so, since I see so many flaws and loopholes--yes, it's far better than GW's but you are not being conservative enough. Don't change rules, then expect people to understand and accept. If the rules have some kind of GW guidance, do what you can of course but when they don't...why meddle? Being a rules judge isn't easy by any means.

You have left many loopholes in the rules but changed others--and not just by closing them, but by rewriting the rules entirely.

That's the problem I (and others) have.

yakface wrote:
When it comes to the Eldar Avatar and regrouping the difference in what you are saying and what is in the FAQ is ultimately very, very slim. although if the ruling is changed to the way you suggest then a sentence would need to be added to make it clear that the unit cannot move again that movement phase if they already made a fall back move (which would be a rules change). Otherwise you would have a situation where a unit essentially moves twice in the same movement phase (falls back within 12" of the Avatar, ceases to fall back and then moves normally).

I disagree. I haven't read your breakdown of Stelek's criticisms, but I think you're misinterpreting the RAW. The difference is not so subtle, as the potential abuse Stelek pointed out is possible under your current ruling. People seem to think that RAW means that they can do whatever they want, as long as "it doesn't say I can't." If the rulebook forbade everything you can't do, you wouldn't be able to lift it up off the table. Thus the "permissive" and "precedent" heuristics that I always apply to the RAW, and reasonably should always be applied. Otherwise you're going to end up saying "it doesn't say I can't," and that's never, ever a defensible position regarding rules interpretations.

As far as getting double movement, the "precedent" heuristic takes care of that. GW has been incredibly consistent in clarifying that double moves, like double rerolls, can NEVER be allowed to happen. If a unit moves (even if it's a fall back move), it "counts as moving" that turn (as indicated in the BGB). Assuming that you would get a normal move in addition to the fall back move you already made that turn would violate the precedent of no double-moves. I personally think it's entirely ridiculous to actually expect that someone would make a fall-back move, and then make a normal move because they became fearless. It's like 1+2=5 to me. Maybe it's just me. Whatever. Either way, your ruling drags regrouping into it, which I understand intuitively, but if you're justifying this one by the RAW then I see no reason why regrouping should have anything to do with it. They fall back, become fearless, they made a fall back move and so can't move again, and they act normally for all other purposes. Am I the only one that this makes sense to? If you feel as though that would be a clarification that was necessary, then fine. It's your FAQ. But by the RAW? I think not. Rules change? No, as it's based on something the rules don't actually say.

Same thing with Guardian Platforms. Even if you don't adopt my ruling, you should at least label it as a clarification, not the RAW. The RAW specifically states "one," and regardless of the interpretation you go with, you can't justify "either" as being the RAW, as you have in your FAQ. I'd like to see your explanation of why "one"=either, actually. The guardian platform rule is sort of like the Psycannon rule, actually, because the second sentence ("If one crewman dies...") would be completely redundant if "either" crewman could fire at any random firing phase. Additionally, as I've pointed out in YMDC, you can't really ascertain when a model stops "firing," although you can certainly intuit when he DOES start to fire (the first time you throw the dice). Since the model "firing" is "armed" with the weapon, by the precedent set by the BGB, a model cannot "swap" wargear with another model, except where specifically noted (the guardian platform exception for a casualty on a crewman being the only example I know of, and for that ruling the switch is allowed only "on pain of death," as it were).

I'm sure that those people that know about the (supposedly legal) guardian platform abuse and don't actually exploit it would find the idea of you allowing the abuse (admittedly to a lesser extent, but in principle the same) despicable. I know that doesn't count for much, but seriously, what honest sportsman would do such a thing? It's exactly like claiming that Psycannons ignore cover in most player's eyes, I would imagine.

Stelek wrote:My responses in BOLD.

Because BOLD makes you so much better and adds strength to your argument.

Stelek wrote:True. Now tell me, Tyranid players have to wait till their next turn to gain Synapse (aka Fearless).

Phil Kelly wrote the Tyranid AND Eldar Codexes--why do the Eldar get Fearless on YOUR turn, but my Gaunts only get it on MY turn?

Synapse doesn't make a unit fearless. It simply allows the Tyranid player to automatically pass most leadership tests. The avatar makes the unit Fearless.

For a supposed RAW-advocate, I'm suprised you can't tell the difference. Tyranids in synapse never have to take additional armor saves if they lose a close combat, because they simply auto-pass the morale check.

Stelek wrote:

yakface wrote:
The rules don't specify one way or another how torrent of fire works when the mixed armor rule is being used. Your guess is as good as mine but the torrent rules do seem to specify that the wound is allocated and resolved immediately before other wounds are allocated. This simply cannot be "meddling" because there is no clear way to play presented in the rulebook.

I disagree. Read the BBB again please, page 24 paragraph 9 followed by the Mixed Armor rules Page 76, part 3. I distinctly see "first". Each 'set' is clearly defined in part 5, with a very clear example of BLACK TEMPLARS which this ruling invalidates. It isn't meddling? It seems clear to me.

I read both those sections as requested and I still don't see any clarity in the rule regarding on how torrent of fire interacts with the steps of the mixed armor rules.

The torrent of fire example on pages 26-27 makes it clear that this special save is made before any other wounds are allocated when dealing with units without mixed armor, but there isn't anything conclusive as to what 'step' the torrent wound is resolved.

Honestly, the ruling can go multiple ways, but I just don't see any clear method in the RAW that you propose is painfully clear. Perhaps if you explain how you play torrent of fire vs. mixed armor and why it would help me to understand?

Stelek wrote:

yakface wrote:
This ruling clearly specifies only when using the "mixed armor" rules which are only utilized if the unit has differing ARMOR saves. The QUESTION is when a unit has differing invulnerable saves and how many times each invulnerable type is able to be used. Again, the rules do not present anything close to resembling a clear path on how to play this issue so this CANNOT be meddling and furthermore your example is completely incorrect as if all the DE models have the same armor save they will not be following the mixed armor rules and would not utilize this ruling.

You do know DE players can (and I do) toss an incubi in as a power weapon squad leader since this unit cannot have a sybarite and the IC is vulnerable to CC death? Incubi have a 3+ save. I deleted the mention of it since I figured you'd know this is one of the few other 'mixed armor' save units in the game that doesn't involve wargear. My mistake.

You do realize since you don't specify that the majority of the 'invulnerable' saves needs to be used, you allow players to abuse this ruling? Here's an example: Two Lash Sorcs in a squad of Thousand Sons. They all have a 3+ armor save, but the Sons have 4+ and the Sorcs have 5+. When you hit the squad with 2 plasma shots, I might as well take them both on the Sorcs--more likely to get wounded, but I don't actually LOSE any model which for Chaos is very important. GW made it crystal clear with the mixed armor save ruling how you should take hits. Why are you meddling and allowing players to choose which invulnerable save to take??

I do know that Eldar retinues can have differing armor saves, but it wasn't included in your original example and I didn't want to assume. If the unit *does* have mixed armor then again your example isn't correct because per the mixed armor rules the wound would have to be allocated to models with the majority armor type first.

Your second example, again does not apply to this ruling as all the models in the unit have the same armor save (just differing invulnerable saves).

Stelek wrote:

yakface wrote:
This question is clearly about ICs, not upgrade characters with drones. At the end of a game how do you determine VPs for an IC with drones? The only thing that makes any sense is to use the IC damage table for the total cost of the character (which includes the cost of the drones). I will try to clarify this question/ruling to make sure it makes more sense in the updated FAQ.

Yes, it IS clear to me but it can be USED against players because it is a far reaching ruling with real consequences. This is why I call it 'meddling'.

What consequences exactly? I'm not sure you're understanding the clarification, and as I stated I've altered the wording to make it easeir to understand for the updated FAQ. It will now read:

RB.85.02A – Q: For Victory Point purposes, does an Independent Character with accompanying Wargear models count as being wounded if his Wargear models are killed during the game?
A: Unless specified otherwise, no. Only the status of the actual Independent Character model at the end of the game matters for Victory Point purposes [RAW].


Hopefully this gets the purpose of the question across better and clears up any confusion.

yakface wrote:
All ICs can only direct their attacks at a single unit, so Typhus could only ever kill one Carnifex in combat in a round. Even if Typhus is fighting a unit of multi-wound creatures since whole models have to be removed when assigning wounds it is a pretty rare case when Typhus would be able to wound multiple models but leave them both alive to be able to use his Deamon weapon's ability.

Sigh. Fine, call them Meganobz with Cybork bodies. Expensive, but popular in certain crowds.

Typhus putting out 5 hits would require each Meganobz to roll seperately, would it not? Then everyone who fails his 5+ save isn't removed per the multi-wound model rule, because we have to wait and see if he can blow the minds of all the Nobs that fail their 5+ save. Or you'd work it differently, and just kill 2 and 1/2 nobs? If it's this way (2 and 1/2 nobs) then why is this ruling even in effect? Under what circumstances CAN Typhus use his power more than once?? If he can't, why have it in the FAQ in the first place?

This ruling is in place for the (very) rare case when wounds are forced onto different models, for example if the unit had mixed armor and invulnerable saves it can happen where a couple of models both end up wounded by Tyhpus but not killed.

yakface wrote:
The problem is (as I've said many times now to different people) "falling back" is both a movement and a state the unit is stuck in (usually) until it regroups. Now, the rules for being Fearless say that such units "never have to fall back". Is this rule referring only to "fall back" movement or to the state of "fall back"? The answer is we don't know (which is why a ruling is needed).

For example, say a unit Falls back to within 12" of an Avatar. In the Assault phase, they are within 6" of an enemy and the Eldar player wants to charge, can he? If no, why? Is it because the unit is still "falling back"? If so, this breaks the Fearless rule which states they "never have to fall back".

True. Now tell me, Tyranid players have to wait till their next turn to gain Synapse (aka Fearless).

Phil Kelly wrote the Tyranid AND Eldar Codexes--why do the Eldar get Fearless on YOUR turn, but my Gaunts only get it on MY turn?

But the Synapse rule does not provide Fearlessness! It is an entirely different rule that is very specific about how it works.

yakface wrote:
I was very, very specific and clear on this ruling. The power cannot be canceled or nullified but some rare units have the ability to IGNORE its effects. Those are two very different concepts. I'm honestly not sure how I could make it any clearer but if you have any suggestions I would be more than willing to listen.

They aren't 'very different concepts'. They are all extremely similar. That's besides the point. Why are non-active powers being abrogated by a item (Null Rod) which says any power that targets or is in the area of effect ceases to function. You are extending 'area of effect' to include non-passive powers, but again, by meddling you aren't making the matter clearer for anyone. What's to stop people from saying you can't use enhance because we're in close combat with the Null Rod? Nothing, you've opened the door to allowing players to say 'area of effect' is virtually anything. I don't see why (under this ruling) that Null Rod Inquisitors attached to a heavy bolter squad won't bypass Conceal. Which is sure as hell isn't how anyone *I* know plays it.

I have to say that ignoring something (which is what a null rod does) and something being cancelled (which is what things like the Sister's of Battle special rules do) are entirely different.

If a radio ceases to function, then the music stops playing for everyone to hear. OTOH, If someone is able to ignore the sounds from a radio, then the radio continues to play for everyone else.

That is the difference between a Null Rod and special rules that nullify/cancel psychic powers.

And you are correct about the Null Rod vs. both Enhance and conceal, and this is the RAW. If a unit ignores all the effects of a psychic power then it ignores all the effects. This is different from cancelling or nullifying a power.

Now, if the vast majority of players don't play that a null rod is able to ignore the effects of all powers, then this is a concept that we can get put out there and potentially alter the FAQ.

Have you spent any time playtesting these rules? I don't think so, since I see so many flaws and loopholes--yes, it's far better than GW's but you are not being conservative enough. Don't change rules, then expect people to understand and accept. If the rules have some kind of GW guidance, do what you can of course but when they don't...why meddle? Being a rules judge isn't easy by any means.

You have left many loopholes in the rules but changed others--and not just by closing them, but by rewriting the rules entirely.

That's the problem I (and others) have.

I understand that you have issues, and I know that there will always be people who disapprove of any FAQ, fan made or company made. The fact is, you cannot please everyone. I guarantee that any FAQ put out by anyone in any format will always have its detractors. It really is that simple.

What my conversations with you have shown me is that we have entirely different ideas of even what the basic "RAW" say. Very, very different. If anything, it has shown me (and I'd wager some others) the exact need for a FAQ in tournaments as we can't even agree on what the strictest reading of the rules produces in some caes.

I absolutely, positively guarantee that if you were to write a FAQ your rulings would seem like "meddling" to me, so I am not surprised the same is true in reverse.

You may think that this is an argument for just not having a FAQ at all in play but I (and many others) strongly feel that it is indeed important to have a baseline document that does provide a clear guide for tricky situations. I have done my best to try to cover the vast majority of loopholes, but if some are missing then by all means submit them.

ColonelEllios wrote:
I disagree. I haven't read your breakdown of Stelek's criticisms, but I think you're misinterpreting the RAW. The difference is not so subtle, as the potential abuse Stelek pointed out is possible under your current ruling.

I didn't get what the potential abuse the ruling as written causes. Stelek (from what I can gather) believes that a unit that comes within 12" of the Avatar doesn't stop "falling back" until the start of their next turn, so if the Avatar gets destroyed in the meantime the unit will continue to fall back. So with this idea of the RAW in mind he reads my ruling as abusive and meddling.

From what I can tell from the ruling you are pushing (which seems very similar to mine from what I can tell) as soon as a unit moves within 12" of the Avatar it stops falling back. If the Avatar is later destroyed by the enemy the unit would not suddenly start falling back again (unless I'm misinterpreting what you're saying).

This is exactly the same thing as what I'm saying, the only difference is that I use the term "regrouping" to indicate that the unit is no longer falling back and you use the term "the unit ceases to fall back".

The only reason I don't care for your terminology is because of the dual meaning the words "fall back" have, some players could be confused into thinking that the unit ceases to make the actual "fall back" move when it gets within 12" of the Avatar but it still counts as "falling back" until it regroups normally.

I'm sure that those people that know about the (supposedly legal) guardian platform abuse and don't actually exploit it would find the idea of you allowing the abuse (admittedly to a lesser extent, but in principle the same) despicable. I know that doesn't count for much, but seriously, what honest sportsman would do such a thing? It's exactly like claiming that Psycannons ignore cover in most player's eyes, I would imagine.

The thing is, I think you're the only person I've ever seen argue the idea that the RAW force the guardian platform to 'stick' with one of the gunners until he dies. So even if I did rule the way you say the RAW command I think you'd see a whole lot of people still angry that I'm changing or meddling with the rules still.

I'm still not sure what the best course of action is on this ruling yet, but as I've said it will be something that will be brought up and discussed again before the FAQ is updated.

Centurian99 wrote:

For a supposed RAW-advocate, I'm suprised you can't tell the difference. Tyranids in synapse never have to take additional armor saves if they lose a close combat, because they simply auto-pass the morale check.

Actually C99, automatically passing morale checks are one of the criteria listed as triggering 'No Retreat!' So units under the influence of Synapse do indeed suffer those wounds.

Centurian99 wrote:

Stelek wrote:My responses in BOLD.

Because BOLD makes you so much better and adds strength to your argument.

Stelek wrote:True. Now tell me, Tyranid players have to wait till their next turn to gain Synapse (aka Fearless).

Phil Kelly wrote the Tyranid AND Eldar Codexes--why do the Eldar get Fearless on YOUR turn, but my Gaunts only get it on MY turn?

Synapse doesn't make a unit fearless. It simply allows the Tyranid player to automatically pass most leadership tests. The avatar makes the unit Fearless.

For a supposed RAW-advocate, I'm suprised you can't tell the difference. Tyranids in synapse never have to take additional armor saves if they lose a close combat, because they simply auto-pass the morale check.

No, because double quoting hurts the eyes. Here, I'll use Italics. Does it add weight?

I can. Maybe you should re-read them rules about no retreat, eh? The Synapse and the Avatar have the same exact in-game effect. Pass morale and pinning checks. That is all--but they're so different we should treat them differently? I don't think so.

I'm a advocate of both RAW and RAI. Thankfully, I feel like I know quite a bit of both.

yakface wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:

For a supposed RAW-advocate, I'm suprised you can't tell the difference. Tyranids in synapse never have to take additional armor saves if they lose a close combat, because they simply auto-pass the morale check.

Actually C99, automatically passing morale checks are one of the criteria listed as triggering 'No Retreat!' So units under the influence of Synapse do indeed suffer those wounds.

Yak I'm gonna sue, you made me fall out of my chair and I hurt my tuckus!

I agree with Yak. Haha now YOU fall out.

Not that my opinion amounts to a hill of beans in this crazy world, but I have just finished reading through the Mixed Armour, Wound Allocation, and Torrent of Fire rules and I totally agree with the way the FAQ has ruled this.

1) Assign one of the wounding hits to the model nominated under the Torrent of Fire rules
2) Resolve that wound
3) Determine majority armour type
4) Assign wounding hits to the majority armour type
5) Assign other wounding hits
6) Roll saves.

Is that how the FAQ works? Because I totally believe that's how it's supposed to work.

Viperion

Viperion wrote:Not that my opinion amounts to a hill of beans in this crazy world, but I have just finished reading through the Mixed Armour, Wound Allocation, and Torrent of Fire rules and I totally agree with the way the FAQ has ruled this.

1) Assign one of the wounding hits to the model nominated under the Torrent of Fire rules
2) Resolve that wound
3) Determine majority armour type
4) Assign wounding hits to the majority armour type
5) Assign other wounding hits
6) Roll saves.

Is that how the FAQ works? Because I totally believe that's how it's supposed to work.

Viperion

That's how the FAQ says to play it, yes.

Ok culling alot of stuff...long quotes hurt the eyes.

yakface wrote:
Honestly, the ruling can go multiple ways, but I just don't see any clear method in the RAW that you propose is painfully clear. Perhaps if you explain how you play torrent of fire vs. mixed armor and why it would help me to understand?

Sure.

I have five incubi with a 3+ save.
I have four warriors with a 5+ save.
I have a dracon with a 5+ save.

I get shot by 10 heavy bolter rounds.

5 go on the incubi.
5 go on the warriors/dracon.

Now the other player can pick ANY of those hits in EITHER set, to go on any model they want to since they hit everyone.

So you can pick out warriors with special weapons, incubi with special weapons, an incubi master, or the dracon.

You roll the save for that model, then roll all the other 'sets'.

So that will be either 5/5 rolls, or 5/4/1 rolls.

Even if the warriors don't get a save, it's still a 'set'.

You do not change the majority armor save until the next time the unit gets shot.

Simple, easy, and no jackassery.

yakface wrote:
I do know that Eldar retinues can have differing armor saves, but it wasn't included in your original example and I didn't want to assume. If the unit *does* have mixed armor then again your example isn't correct because per the mixed armor rules the wound would have to be allocated to models with the majority armor type first.

Your second example, again does not apply to this ruling as all the models in the unit have the same armor save (just differing invulnerable saves).

So first example, I get shot and I can allocate a lascannon hit to the guy with the 2+ invulnerable save since he's part of the majority. This is how it works now, but in units with more drastic mixed armor types (like Black Templars) and invulnerable saves available on multiple models you'll often end up with a unit having a balanced mix of majority/minority saves throughout the game but with this rule the opposing player can (and should) manipulate how YOUR army works normally, simply by popping enough shots into the unit and bypassing just one save. A predator with TL las and heavy bolters would have a field day under these rules.

Here's an example: Six guys with 3+ saves. Five guys with 4+ saves. As it stands now, the lascannon nails a power armor marine; 5 marines take their 3+ save; and 1 initiate dies. Under your rules, the lascannon goes first. The majority armor type is changed immediately. All 5 initiates die, and 1 marine takes a 3+ save.

This isn't a game changing ruling? Really?

The second example is pointing out a flaw in your reasoning--GW does not allow players to willy nilly choose their worst armor save models to take saves on. If you are going to make the distinction of different invulnerable saves, you should force them to take it on the majority just as if it was a armor save.

yakface wrote:
RB.85.02A – Q: For Victory Point purposes, does an Independent Character with accompanying Wargear models count as being wounded if his Wargear models are killed during the game?
A: Unless specified otherwise, no. Only the status of the actual Independent Character model at the end of the game matters for Victory Point purposes [RAW].

There are no 'specific otherwise' in the game at the moment.

The status of the IC does not matter at the end of the game for VP purposes, but if a Tau loses his drones (and becomes a IC again) wasn't his "unit" destroyed? It might only be 60 points, but all points matter.

yakface wrote:
This ruling is in place for the (very) rare case when wounds are forced onto different models, for example if the unit had mixed armor and invulnerable saves it can happen where a couple of models both end up wounded by Tyhpus but not killed.

Can you list an example please?

yakface wrote:
But the Synapse rule does not provide Fearlessness! It is an entirely different rule that is very specific about how it works.

Entirely different wording, same game effect--so how is it different other than how it's worded?

yakface wrote:
Now, if the vast majority of players don't play that a null rod is able to ignore the effects of all powers, then this is a concept that we can get put out there and potentially alter the FAQ.

I sure don't believe it can pass it's invulnerability to powers targeting the unit, out through guns and into a guardian squad with magic bullets.

yakface wrote:
You may think that this is an argument for just not having a FAQ at all in play but I (and many others) strongly feel that it is indeed important to have a baseline document that does provide a clear guide for tricky situations. I have done my best to try to cover the vast majority of loopholes, but if some are missing then by all means submit them.

Yak, there are too many loopholes. I don't know if I want to spend 100 hours nailing them all down. I've already pointed out loopholes in the FAQ you're writing, and I haven't seen much positive feedback come from that. It's discouraging.

yakface wrote:
From what I can tell from the ruling you are pushing (which seems very similar to mine from what I can tell) as soon as a unit moves within 12" of the Avatar it stops falling back. If the Avatar is later destroyed by the enemy the unit would not suddenly start falling back again (unless I'm misinterpreting what you're saying).

No no, you have it wrong. I do NOT think Eldar units should get a free 'fearless' during the opponents turn. Nobody gets that. The game has been designed around you rally at the start of your OWN turn. That's where the problem lies. We aren't saying the same thing, what I'm saying is what this ruling does is create a game breaking exception SOLELY for the Avatar. That's crapola in my book. No one should get more than what everybody else gets when it's the same rule--but the Eldar do? I love my Eldar, and I used to run a Avatar back in the day--and people would break my units then tag the Avatar, and I couldn't rally those units. It's how the army plays. You're changing it!

Fabricator General wrote:

So before you comment - you may want to be sure you have all the facts.

mmmm..... are you serious? Are you really serious? I'm supposed to read your mind and get all the facts that way? I'm only have what you said as a reference. If you want to share all you have, then I'll duly regard your comment.

Hopefully you didn't give that guy a good sports score either for being such a liar.

"Fabricator General"...are YOU serious? You start a new account with my multi-forum handle by eliminating a hyphen? I may not be able to claim a copyright on the use of Fabricator-General on 40K forums but I have been the only one I knew about for about 10 years before I saw your post on this thread.

So, please , if you are going to use a handle so close to my own try not to stir things up with the guys I talk to on other forums. They think its me when it is not.

Greg...this is Kasper from 40KFC...if you want verification beyond the avatar I'll pm you which round we played against each other in the Gladiator three years ago. I do not know this other guy posting, but you clearly think he is me.

As for the FAQ, I don't give a damn...which is why I have not been posting pro or con in the debates.

Stelek wrote:
Sure.

I have five incubi with a 3+ save.
I have four warriors with a 5+ save.
I have a dracon with a 5+ save.

I get shot by 10 heavy bolter rounds.

5 go on the incubi.
5 go on the warriors/dracon.

Now the other player can pick ANY of those hits in EITHER set, to go on any model they want to since they hit everyone.

So you can pick out warriors with special weapons, incubi with special weapons, an incubi master, or the dracon.

You roll the save for that model, then roll all the other 'sets'.

So that will be either 5/5 rolls, or 5/4/1 rolls.

Even if the warriors don't get a save, it's still a 'set'.

You do not change the majority armor save until the next time the unit gets shot.

Simple, easy, and no jackassery.

I think that is a valid way to make a ruling, but it certainly isn't anymore of what the rules say to do then the ruling that is made in the FAQ. As I pointed out before, the torrent rules and example make it clear that it is resolved BEFORE other wounds are allocated. Yes, the example deals with a unit without mixed armor, but there isn't any justification in the rules (that I see) to suddenly decide that when dealing with the mixed armor rules that principle is suddenly abandoned.

So first example, I get shot and I can allocate a lascannon hit to the guy with the 2+ invulnerable save since he's part of the majority. This is how it works now, but in units with more drastic mixed armor types (like Black Templars) and invulnerable saves available on multiple models you'll often end up with a unit having a balanced mix of majority/minority saves throughout the game but with this rule the opposing player can (and should) manipulate how YOUR army works normally, simply by popping enough shots into the unit and bypassing just one save. A predator with TL las and heavy bolters would have a field day under these rules.

Here's an example: Six guys with 3+ saves. Five guys with 4+ saves. As it stands now, the lascannon nails a power armor marine; 5 marines take their 3+ save; and 1 initiate dies. Under your rules, the lascannon goes first. The majority armor type is changed immediately. All 5 initiates die, and 1 marine takes a 3+ save.

This isn't a game changing ruling? Really?

Are you combining this discussion with the torrent discussion above (I'm not sure but it seems like that's what you're talking about now)?

In your example that would *only* occur if the Predator caused as many wounds as models in the unit, which is impossible for any Predator configuration I can think of, but I get what you're trying to say. Even so, the torrent rules only force a model to make an armor save, the owning player still gets to choose which weapon they save against.

But I don't understand how this particular discussion started out as against the ruling involving mutiple types of inulnerable saves and has now turned into another discussion about the impact of the torrent ruling?

The second example is pointing out a flaw in your reasoning--GW does not allow players to willy nilly choose their worst armor save models to take saves on. If you are going to make the distinction of different invulnerable saves, you should force them to take it on the majority just as if it was a armor save.

Again, that is a valid ruling, but it would still be a rules change as GW does not dictate how wounds are allocated amongst differing invulnerable saves on models with the same armor save.

The reason the ruling was made as is just to keep the way differing invulnerable saves are handled essentially the same between units with mixed armor saves and units with the same armor save, with that being: the owning player mostly gets to choose which models take the hits first. Otherwise isolated invulnerable saves in a unit (such as shield drones) can only ever be used if the unit takes enough wounds so that every model takes a wound.

That may be the way you play (I don't know) but I have found (both through experience and polls) that the vast majority of players play that if a unit has a model with an invulnerable save the owning player is allowed to allocate (for example) a single lascannon wound to that model to try their luck at passing that save.

The mixed armor with differing invulnerable save ruling just stays in line with that same principle: when it comes to invulnerable saves, the owning player is allowed to choose to put a lone wound on the invulnerable save of his choice in the unit.

There are no 'specific otherwise' in the game at the moment.

The status of the IC does not matter at the end of the game for VP purposes, but if a Tau loses his drones (and becomes a IC again) wasn't his "unit" destroyed? It might only be 60 points, but all points matter.

But there is no "unit" to pull VPs from! There is only the cost of the character (which includes the cost of the Drones). When it comes to giving up VPs, you always essentially default back to the codex entry and see what is a unit and what is worth any amount of VPs. While the Drones do form a unit with the IC during the game, their is no base drone unit to refer back to for their points value.

yakface wrote:
This ruling is in place for the (very) rare case when wounds are forced onto different models, for example if the unit had mixed armor and invulnerable saves it can happen where a couple of models both end up wounded by Tyhpus but not killed.

Can you list an example please?

Sure. It's rare, but say you have a unit of Nobs with Cybork bodies (5+ Invulnerable) and some have 'eavy armor (4+ armor save) and others have regular armor (6+ armor save). They've been whittled down to four Nobs, two of each type remaining.

Typhus rolls well for his number of Attacks, 'to hits', and 'to wounds' and ends up inflicting six wounds. Four go on the 6+ armor save Nobs and the other two go on the 4+ save Nobs.

Since Typhus ignores armor saves, only the invulnerable save may be taken. Of the four wounds on the '6+ save' Nobs one is saved and on the '4+ save' Nobs one is also saved. That means one '6+ save' Nob is removed as a casualty and one is left with one wound. Also, one '4+ save' Nob is left with one wound as well.

Typhus would then get to make a psychic test against each model he wounded but didn't kill.

yakface wrote:
But the Synapse rule does not provide Fearlessness! It is an entirely different rule that is very specific about how it works.

Entirely different wording, same game effect--so how is it different other than how it's worded?

It is not the same thing. They very easily could have made Synapse provide the Fearless USR to units within range, but they did not. They created a custom rule tha thas some very distinct properties to it. It seems that you want to (in this case) treat the rules for Fearless as the same thing as Synapse which would most definitely be a rules change that I'm sure plenty of people would consider "meddling".

yakface wrote:
Now, if the vast majority of players don't play that a null rod is able to ignore the effects of all powers, then this is a concept that we can get put out there and potentially alter the FAQ.

I sure don't believe it can pass it's invulnerability to powers targeting the unit, out through guns and into a guardian squad with magic bullets.

Why not? Conceal is a psychic power that creates an illussion of fog or some other nonsense that conceals the unit from sight. A unit with a Null Rod ignores that effect and can see the unit normally. No magic bullets needed.

Yak, there are too many loopholes. I don't know if I want to spend 100 hours nailing them all down. I've already pointed out loopholes in the FAQ you're writing, and I haven't seen much positive feedback come from that. It's discouraging.

I understand. I'm honestly not looking for you to take the time to do that but you need to understand that it is pretty clear that you have some fundamental ideas about the RAW that differ from what I read. If we can't agree on what the rules actually SAY then how could we ever agree about rulings based upon those rules?

If you want to help by pointing out incosistencies, fine. But otherwise, I resprectfully ask that you just let the thread be so I can collect more feedback from those who find the FAQ useful and would like to contribute to its development.

yakface wrote:
From what I can tell from the ruling you are pushing (which seems very similar to mine from what I can tell) as soon as a unit moves within 12" of the Avatar it stops falling back. If the Avatar is later destroyed by the enemy the unit would not suddenly start falling back again (unless I'm misinterpreting what you're saying).

No no, you have it wrong. I do NOT think Eldar units should get a free 'fearless' during the opponents turn. Nobody gets that. The game has been designed around you rally at the start of your OWN turn. That's where the problem lies. We aren't saying the same thing, what I'm saying is what this ruling does is create a game breaking exception SOLELY for the Avatar. That's crapola in my book. No one should get more than what everybody else gets when it's the same rule--but the Eldar do? I love my Eldar, and I used to run a Avatar back in the day--and people would break my units then tag the Avatar, and I couldn't rally those units. It's how the army plays. You're changing it!

I was refering to Colonel Ellios, not to you.

Oo! I thought of another one which comes up frequently. If I have an Epistolary with two psychic powers, does he pay the higher price for both powers, or only for the second power? I know that the consensus here is that he pays the higher price for both, but on the B&C the last time I brought up the question the unanimous answer was that he pays the lower price for the first power and the higher price for the second one.

Pariah Press wrote:Oo! I thought of another one which comes up frequently. If I have an Epistolary with two psychic powers, does he pay the higher price for both powers, or only for the second power? I know that the consensus here is that he pays the higher price for both, but on the B&C the last time I brought up the question the unanimous answer was that he pays the lower price for the first power and the higher price for the second one.

Actually, I think the consensus was that he only pays the higher price for the second power.

Pariah Press: The way I've always read it (and played with my group) is that the first power is the first price, the second power is the second price listed. Doesn't it say that they can take a second power at the second price listed?

Yak: My group has always played that the null rod only works on powers that affect the unit with the null rod, but not things like enhance and conceal which don't affect the null rod unit. Though I think I've seen the word "meddling" more times in this thread than I ever thought I could. The way I've looked at the Null Rod is that is works on something that targets the unit or would make the unit unable to do something, but not powers that are targeting another unit. I've based this on how I read the rule for it. I honestly never thought of it being able to take out conceal or enhance.

All in all, I'm glad to see this FAQ. It goes so much farther at trying to fix what has been ignored by GW for years. Thank you for all the hard work.

Fabricator-General wrote: Greg...this is Kasper from 40KFC...if you want verification beyond the avatar I'll pm you which round we played against each other in the Gladiator three years ago. I do not know this other guy posting, but you clearly think he is me.

Hey Mike - there is no verification necessary. The douche bag that made this account/comments needs to pull his head from where the sun doesn't shine.

Null - for what it is worth - we play where the null rod ignores all powers just as in the FAQ.

Librarian - only pays higher price for the second power.

yakface wrote:

ColonelEllios wrote:
I disagree. I haven't read your breakdown of Stelek's criticisms, but I think you're misinterpreting the RAW. The difference is not so subtle, as the potential abuse Stelek pointed out is possible under your current ruling.

I didn't get what the potential abuse the ruling as written causes. Stelek (from what I can gather) believes that a unit that comes within 12" of the Avatar doesn't stop "falling back" until the start of their next turn, so if the Avatar gets destroyed in the meantime the unit will continue to fall back. So with this idea of the RAW in mind he reads my ruling as abusive and meddling.

From what I can tell from the ruling you are pushing (which seems very similar to mine from what I can tell) as soon as a unit moves within 12" of the Avatar it stops falling back. If the Avatar is later destroyed by the enemy the unit would not suddenly start falling back again (unless I'm misinterpreting what you're saying).

This is exactly the same thing as what I'm saying, the only difference is that I use the term "regrouping" to indicate that the unit is no longer falling back and you use the term "the unit ceases to fall back".

Fair enough. I see now that I got slightly confused in the maelstrom of feedback that has occurred. To clarify my point on the Avatar issue: You have it correctly labeled as a rule change, but I don't think it's necessary. A simple clarification is all that is necessary, as I have attempted to show. If you clarify like this, instead of making a "rule change," I think that people are less apt to make the mistake Stelek did by assuming that their play style impacts YOUR ruling. I think your inclusion of "regrouping" in your rule change might be the root cause of this. I think that Stelek has a valid point that individual interpretation is still going to happen despite your attempts to resolve it all, so I for one wouldn't be surprised to see at least a couple of instances of players asking for a clarification of your clarification/rule, which hasn't really solved anything.

yakface wrote:The only reason I don't care for your terminology is because of the dual meaning the words "fall back" have, some players could be confused into thinking that the unit ceases to make the actual "fall back" move when it gets within 12" of the Avatar but it still counts as "falling back" until it regroups normally.

I think this serves to nail my point home. I think your wording propagates this misinterpretation, because a "Fearless" unit cannot be assumed to be "in the state of" falling back, and they never fall back. Thus, a strict reading of the RAW indicates my reasoning, and avoids the misinterpretation that your wording seems to entice. Plus, I think in the rulebook the "state of falling back" is interchangeably referred to as "broken," IIRC, which might cause more confusion (thus the need for a clarification).

yakface wrote:

colonelellios wrote:
I'm sure that those people that know about the (supposedly legal) guardian platform abuse and don't actually exploit it would find the idea of you allowing the abuse (admittedly to a lesser extent, but in principle the same) despicable. I know that doesn't count for much, but seriously, what honest sportsman would do such a thing? It's exactly like claiming that Psycannons ignore cover in most player's eyes, I would imagine.

The thing is, I think you're the only person I've ever seen argue the idea that the RAW force the guardian platform to 'stick' with one of the gunners until he dies. So even if I did rule the way you say the RAW command I think you'd see a whole lot of people still angry that I'm changing or meddling with the rules still.

I'm still not sure what the best course of action is on this ruling yet, but as I've said it will be something that will be brought up and discussed again before the FAQ is updated.

At the risk of sounding incredibly arrogant, I'm pretty sure I'm the only Eldar player that actually tried to tease the meaning of the platform entry out via the RAW. The vast majority, in my experience, continue to play it like the old codex (which, incidentally, has almost the exact effect of my RAW reasoning). The ones that try and legitimize the platform "teleport abuse" are guilty of two things that tend to indicate a misreading of a rule:
1) "One" does not = "either," although I completely understand this assumption and how it comes about, and also must be ignoring the "in the case of death..." caviat provided, because as I said, this is redundant if "either" guardian is truly able to fire at any individual shooting phase.
2) They have failed to really consider the issue, and try and claim RAW (which isn't true) to back up their newfound ability. They are committing the error of failing to err on the side of "least favorable interpretation," and, what's worse, the only way to justify the platform switching is to resort to the phrase, "it doesn't say I can't." The rule says "one." I think that's pretty clear. To go on to assume that that allows you to switch the location of the weapon on the field, which violates every precedent set previously and isn't clearly indicated by the rule, leads you to the former indefensible claim.

forgive me if im wrong but you dont work for GW yor not part of the rules development team and while Adepticon is an indy gt it is part of the GAMES WORKSHOP TOURNAMENT CIRCUIT... which means you follow their rules

im sorry but if that is how things are going to be run, my team will not be attending. we have already cancelled our reservations and have decided we are not going to be attending

so you are not going because they cleared up the rules problems before hand???
Have you guys been there before?
my 6 or 7 teams if we can work it out will be there in force lifting a beer high singing praise for Jeff, Hank , Ogre(after a few drinks) and the whole FAQ team

this is the best event all year long you could go to, better than a regular GT by far even though cuddos to Dave T for making this year alot better and moving forward.
The biggest problem you could have is a rules dispute and this way it's in black and white ahead of time...

And GW hasn't done one in forever, why do a FAQ when you can just redo the rules instead.

[/
yakface wrote:

Tournaments always have and always will have their own set of rules from missions to scoring that players have to abide by if they choose to play in the tournament. No one forces you to attend the tournament but you do have to accept whatever rules they choose to utilize.

If a TO wants to use this FAQ for their tournament, great! If you don't like the FAQ you will now have an easy way of telling which tournaments you want to avoid.


But I do want to make sure that everyone knows besides all the arguments we're still looking for feedback from people who would like to help improve this FAQ with constructive criticism.



Actually I don't know what the bloody hell 'missions' and 'scoring' has to do with remaking 40K with a major rules rewrite.

The rules people 'choose to utilize' at local tournaments are the GW rules, flawed as they may be.

How would I know what 'FAQ' someone is or isn't using--call them up and ask if they're using the Adepticon 40K rules or the GW 40K rules?

Are you serious?

The sheer size of the FAQ alone is more than enough to stifle interest in reading the whole thing. It seems those that read the whole thing are none too happy with the meddling that's gone on. Is that a clue? color]

[color=#444444]wrong love it
whole group of people scattered around the country love 99% percent of it
Isn't this the 4th or 5th year they have had a FAQ??????????????????????????????????????????

Has run smooth up till now
I hate being at a tournament and the game coming down to a single rules question that neither side will agree to and the judge going just roll a D6 and remember have a nice sporty game when you are right there going for the gold

Stelek wrote:

A: Yes, Daemonhunter and Witch Hunter units may both
be taken as allies in the same army [GW DH FAQ
overrule].

Why? GW deemed this combination too powerful, something I fully agree with. Yet another army list changed.



Because it's the way the vast majority of players interpreted that ruling. Does giving more options for an army list somehow make the game worse?

try reading the witchhunter codex where it says that multiple ordos can ally together with another force.
You could have all 3 together if you feel like it
and I used them all year at the GT's and GD's last year. And at least once usually twice per event. Dave Taylor got tired of people not believing what the latest codex said went away unhappy lots of times.

So I should shut up.

And not one of my points has gotten anywhere.

Shutting up.

Enjoy.

Stelek wrote: wrote:

A: Yes, Daemonhunter and Witch Hunter units may both
be taken as allies in the same army [GW DH FAQ
overrule].

Why? GW deemed this combination too powerful, something I fully agree with. Yet another army list changed.

The reason why this was labelled as a [GW DH FAQ overrule] is because the FAQ on the GW websites was updated prior to the 2nd printing release of the DH Codex. If someone can quote the exact dates, I believe the 2nd printing of the DH codex (which essentially states the same thing as the FAQ answer above) - came out in mid to late 2005. The FAQ errata portion is given to clarify the first printing. GW did not note this clearly, but as we all know the newest document typically provides the actual rules to be used.