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

Adepticon has just released the FAQ that they will be using at this year's tournament, and I'm proud to announce that it a document that is written and edited by me, although all rulings were still made by a collaboration of players (with myself included in that council). It is called "The Independent National Warhammer 40,000 Tournament FAQ" (or "INAT_FAQ" for short).

You can either download it from their front page:

http://www.adepticon.org/


Or you can simply download it from the attachment at the bottom of this post.


As always, feedback on the document is welcome and changes can and will likely be made to the FAQ before the tournament rolls around so make sure you check back to get the latest version before you travel. You can either post that feedback here in this thread, or you can head on over to Adepticon's forums and do it there (either way it will get noticed):

Adepticon's FAQ feedback thread


Some of you may be wondering: Why is this called the "Independent National Tournament" FAQ and not just the "Adepticon FAQ" as usual. This is because the FAQ was written in such a way that it hopefully can be used by any other tournament should they want to adopt it for their own needs. If enough tournaments choose to utilize the document it is our hope that we might actually help to achieve a little bit of rules consistency in the US tournament scene. Those are, of course lofty goals but everyone has to dream, right?

That is an amazing piece of work.

Bravo sir, Bravo!

It's very well laid out. It is also very useful that it gives the status for each answer (change or RAW) and when needed, a justification.

Excellent!

Hey GW, pay attention. This is how professionals do it.

(or more precisely, this is how very smart amateurs make actual professionals look silly and incompetent).

mauleed wrote:Hey GW, pay attention. This is how professionals do it.

(or more precisely, this is how very smart amateurs make actual professionals look silly and incompetent).

Ditto'd for truthiness

Uh, am I the only one who noticed that the FAQ itself is dated 2007?

Ghaz wrote:Uh, am I the only one who noticed that the FAQ itself is dated 2007?

Yes? Wow. several pairs of eyes and months of proof-reading and still the most obvious thing in the word was missed. Thanks, Ghaz. You can be assured that the next version of it will have that little error corrected.

Well we did start the process in 2007 with the idea it would be released in 2007. Does that count?

I will say that the FAQ was/is a huge undertaking. I personally can not give enough praise to to Jon "Yakface" for his efforts. He has put a good bit of blood, sweat, and tears into creating an amazing document. I personally appreciate, as well as the rest of the contributors, his efforts. For my part in it was minor. As with anything, elements of it will be controversial, in the end differences of opinion about a handful of rules must be set aside, a method adopted, and games played with hopefully a greater common understanding.

how embarrassing for games-workshop. but major up's for the authors !

Lots of big rules changes there. Gotta give props for all the work that must have been involved though.

I have to say, this is a really nice peice of work. Printing it up as I type right now for transfer into page protectors. Thanx to all those involved in making it.

I know this FAQ isnt totally "official" but.....

@Mauleed-can my Dark Angels shoot pistols at you and charge now? Will you allow it?

...will you be DOING it?

Awesome work, again. This will be in my gear for every 40k tournament I attend this year, though I don't envy you the work of doing it again when 5th ed comes out.

jeremycobert wrote:how embarrassing for games-workshop. but major up's for the authors !

Not at all. It just shows how much effort is involved in doing a *proper* FAQ. You've got probably a half-dozen people working for a half-dozen months quarter-time. That's like 9 staff months worth of work. And it excludes "professional" typesetting and proofing for print production.

If you look at GW's studio resources, the overall effort for a comprehensive FAQ probably very comparable to producing a Codex or Army Book, just without the minis. If anybody thinks GW is going to spend that kind of effort for something that drives NO direct miniatures sales, they need to rethink how GW actually works.

From a player perspective, would you rather have seen FAQ:40k take the Ork Codex slot, and the Dark Eldar (ha!) being pushed back even farther in the queue? Yeah, I know, after a decade, waiting another 6 months or year isn't a big deal, but I still think getting the new Codex & minis sooner is better.

Downloading as we speak. Thanks to all that made this document. Props!!

Capt K

This thread is in place to allow feedback on this FAQ. If this discussion veers towards a GW FAQ thread I may have to delete posts to get things back on topic.


Just think of me as gold leader:

"Stay on topic".

Thanks Yak and Adeptus, we are using this one around the shop as a "standardized" FAQ. Better something standardized than making decisions after every rules question. Very worthwhile for the gaming community, and it will help prepare us when we head up for the tourney. Your hard work is greatly appreciated by the community.

Can I be Pops? AKA Gold 5? LOL...I count 30 guns...some on the towers...some on the surface.

Capt K

yakface wrote:
This thread is in place to allow feedback on this FAQ. If this discussion veers towards a GW FAQ thread I may have to delete posts to get things back on topic.


Just think of me as gold leader:

"Stay on topic".

This goes out to the crew that worked on this: Great Job!!

To Yak specifically - It's time to get rid of this from your sig

"yakface's 40K rule #1: You can use modeling to your advantage, you can use modeling to your advantage, you can use modeling to your advantage."

Seeing that it's the very first rule addressed in the document - you should practice what you preach.

RB.52.05 – Q: Can a Psyker use more than one
psychic power per player turn?
A: Each codex lists their army’s particular psychic
limitations [RAW]. If no limitation is listed (such as the
Tyranid codex), a psyker is free to use as many psychic
powers per player turn as allowed by the rules for their
psychic powers. However unless specified otherwise,
each particular power may not be used more than once
per turn [rules change].

Once per player turn, right? It would probably be good to specify.

Also, it doesn’t appear that the “player turn” vs “game turn” distinction is mentioned definitionally, at least not on page 4 where I’d expect to find it.

Mannahnin wrote:RB.52.05 – Q: Can a Psyker use more than one
psychic power per player turn?
A: Each codex lists their army’s particular psychic
limitations [RAW]. If no limitation is listed (such as the
Tyranid codex), a psyker is free to use as many psychic
powers per player turn as allowed by the rules for their
psychic powers. However unless specified otherwise,
each particular power may not be used more than once
per turn [rules change].

Once per player turn, right? It would probably be good to specify.

Also, it doesn’t appear that the “player turn” vs “game turn” distinction is mentioned definitionally, at least not on page 4 where I’d expect to find it.

Player turn vs. game turn is defined in the GW FAQ, with any plain reference of "turn" meaning "player turn".

But I'll ammend that answer to add "player" to the mix just to be clear.

Nice work, fellas. I noticed something that may or may not be an error:

"MCO.08B – Q: The GW online SM FAQ states that
any model in Terminator Armor may Deep Strike
even if the mission doesn’t normally allow it. Does
this apply to any other codices?
A: This ruling only applies to Terminators taken from the
Space Marine, Black Templar, Dark Angels, Blood Angels,
and Space Wolf codices along with any Marine
Terminators whose rules refer back to the basic Space
Marine codex [GW FAQ overrule].
Ref: BT.28A.01, DH.19A.01, SM.25C.02"

I thought Space Wolves "Will Not Teleport?"

Pariah Press wrote: Nice work, fellas. I noticed something that may or may not be an error:

"MCO.08B – Q: The GW online SM FAQ states that
any model in Terminator Armor may Deep Strike
even if the mission doesn’t normally allow it. Does
this apply to any other codices?
A: This ruling only applies to Terminators taken from the
Space Marine, Black Templar, Dark Angels, Blood Angels,
and Space Wolf codices along with any Marine
Terminators whose rules refer back to the basic Space
Marine codex [GW FAQ overrule].
Ref: BT.28A.01, DH.19A.01, SM.25C.02"

I thought Space Wolves "Will Not Teleport?"

Yep, it will be changed. Thanks.

Deadshane1 wrote:I know this FAQ isnt totally "official" but.....

@Mauleed-can my Dark Angels shoot pistols at you and charge now? Will you allow it?

...will you be DOING it?

Only if we're playing at a tournament that uses this FAQ. (irrelevant because you won't see me at a 40k tournament until 5th comes out. I'm sticking with fantasy)

I don't care what rules we use, just as long as we're all using the same ones. This thing is so awesome if I still ran tournaments I'd insist we used it.

Oh, Yakface, is there any chance of clarification of the cost to include Honour Guards in Ultramarine squads, and whether models upgraded to be Deathwatch Vets have True Grit or not? I see these questions, well, "Frequently Asked."

We're most definitely still accepting more valid questions.

Can you flush out the ones you've posted a bit (I'm familiar with the Honor Guard question)?

In particular, what are the details regarding Deathwatch vets and True Grit (give me a synopsis)?

"As an alternative to fielding entire Kill Teams, you may upgrade one or more members of any Space Marine army... It costs 5 points to make a model a Deathwatch Veteran (there is no change to its profile)... etc."

The Deathwatch Kill Team unit entry lists True Grit as a special rule.

There has been some disagreement as to whether a model upgraded to being a Deathwatch Veteran receives True Grit or not.

Mannahnin wrote:RB.52.05 – Q: Can a Psyker use more than one
psychic power per player turn?
A: Each codex lists their army’s particular psychic
limitations [RAW]. If no limitation is listed (such as the
Tyranid codex), a psyker is free to use as many psychic
powers per player turn as allowed by the rules for their
psychic powers. However unless specified otherwise,
each particular power may not be used more than once
per turn [rules change].

It is too bad that is the ruling. It makes Ahriman useless.

why dont most of the ork characters have the waaagh rule? i would think that big bad named ork characters would DEFINATLY gain the power of the waaaagh.

OMG...color diagrams. /faints

All of my comments in Italics.

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

RB.39.02A – Q: If models fighting an existing close
combat are within cover and charged by a new
enemy unit do they get the cover bonus? Do the
Attacking models get to use grenades?
A: No. Once locked in combat, models within cover gain
no further benefit from it and therefore attackers cannot
use grenades or Flesh Hooks against them [rules change].

Question: I think you should make it a bit clearer that you still roll difficult terrain to charge, but then resolve attacks in normal initiative order for all combatants.

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

RB.47B.01 – Q: What constitutes a shooting
casualty for causing a morale check? Do models
killed by an exploding vehicle count?
A: Any casualty suffered in the shooting phase counts,
regardless of the source [rules change].

I'm curious why this was decided as a good thing? It would also include losses to being shot out of a transport vehicle, so if I'm not 'entangled' I might run away because my Rhino was blown up? Really?

You also don't cover casaulties from game mechanics in the movement phase. If you do the above, why not also cover this?

Seems very odd for a deffrolla to crush my Rhino, force me out, I lose guys and don't care; but the lootas that did the same thing to second squad might make them run.
It's not consistent.

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

RB.51.02 – Q: When Independent Characters are
joined to, or part of a unit, and that unit is wiped
out by shooting or close combat, does the
character still take Morale and Pinning tests as if
he was part of the unit (including the -1 Ld
modifier for the unit being under 50% strength)?
A: Yes, for Morale and Pinning purposes, they count as
being part of the unit through the end of the phase in
which the unit was wiped out [rules change].
Also, enemies who fired at the unit that was
subsequently wiped out may still declare a charge against
the (now) lone IC in the following Assault phase.

You don't cover additional shooting in this instance. Do they also count as being part of the unit through the end of the phase for other purposes? If so, this effectively strips IC's of their IC status until the shooting phase is over. Lascannons away!

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

Under Psychic powers, you list Nurgles rot as using a template. Since the word template is defined as one of three templates....and rot does not use these, you might want to change that.

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

RB.52.05 – Q: Can a Psyker use more than one
psychic power per player turn?
A: Each codex lists their army’s particular psychic
limitations [RAW]. If no limitation is listed (such as the
Tyranid codex), a psyker is free to use as many psychic
powers per player turn as allowed by the rules for their
psychic powers. However unless specified otherwise,
each particular power may not be used more than once
per turn [rules change].
Ref: CSM.32.01

You don't mention Force Weapons. These have a restriction of 'this or nothing else' in the BBB. There are exceptions (Mephiston).

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

RB.54B.01 – Q: Can a jetbike model carrying a
rapid fire or heavy weapon (as opposed to a bikemounted
weapon) fire it and then charge into
combat in the subsequent Assault phase?
A: Yes, a jetbike model may fire any heavy or rapid fire
weapon and still charge into combat. Note that the rapid
fire weapon may only be fired at maximum range if it is
actually bike-mounted [RAW].
Ref: RB.53B.01

I don't see any mention of heavy weapons for the Jetbike being able to be used and then a Jetbike move. I do see it for Jump Infantry. Shouldn't this be covered?

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

RB.61.02G – Q: Can a Skimmer choose to enter
difficult terrain rather than hovering over it?
A: A Skimmer may not normally choose to enter difficult
terrain unless it has a special rule that allows it to do so
[RAW].

RB.61.02H – Q: Can a Skimmer Tank Shock enemy
units in area terrain? If so, does the Skimmer
move into the terrain?
A: A Skimmer tank that declares a Tank Shock against a
unit in area terrain is allowed to (and must) move into
the terrain to do so, but it will take a dangerous terrain
test like a non-Skimmer to do so [rules change].

So what happens if the Skimmer cannot exit the terrain because it's moved as far as it's going to--what if it gets stunned and cannot move further as a result of a DOG attack? These two rules contradict each other in that instance.

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

RB.74G.02 – Q: If two units locked in combat with
each other both have the Hit & Run USR, how is
that situation handled?
A: The unit with the higher Initiative characteristic (use
the majority rule) makes its Hit & Run move first. If both
units have the same Initiative, randomly determine which
unit moves first [rules change].

This seems bad. Why isn't this resolved just like Pile In moves are, player whose turn it is goes first? Seems kindy bullshitty that a higher Init unit that got charged, can hit & run away from another unit that also has hit & run but is lower init. Gives the advantage to one player always, instead of as designed--to the player whose turn (and assault phase) it is.

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

RB.81A.01 – Q: If a single Force Organization
choice is made up of several units (such as an
Imperial Guard Platoon) and only some of those
units can Infiltrate/Deep Strike/etc, can those
abilities be utilized or must the entire choice be
deployed at the same time?
A: Units with a special deployment ability are free to
utilize it, even if it they will be deployed at a different
time from the rest of their Force Organization choice
[clarification]. However, all units from a single Force
Organization chart using the same special deployment
ability are deployed at the same time.

You do realize this is not really practical? 6 IG teams cannot all be deployed at the same time when deep striking, or do you really expect IG players to place 6 unit leaders down; roll scatter for each; and place each? I know I wouldn't want to bother with it.

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

RB.81A.02 – Q: When the mission says that units
may not be deployed within 18” inches of the
enemy. Does that mean they can be exactly 18”
away or that they must be set up more than 18”
away from each other?
A: Models must be set up more than the distance
specified apart from each other. Meaning that models
that are able to move 6” and assault 12” are unable to
charge on the very first player turn [clarification].

Yet, cannot all of the units that CAN make that move, also fleet? So by definition, they can ALL assault first turn as the minimum roll for fleet is 1"? The only exception I believe is Tyranid Warriors?

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

RB.84C.02 – Does Deep Striking into difficult
terrain count as moving into the terrain for models
that have to take Dangerous Terrain tests when
moving into terrain?
A: Yes [rules change].

If possible, you should clarify how far the models are counted as moving, since that would for say Land Speeders actually be TWO dangerous terrain tests since they currently count as moving over 12". Tau Crisis Suits can fire, so they would be defined as moving 6", so they'd only take 1 test. Just a suggestion.

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

RB.84I.07 – Q: What happens to units in Reserve
that never arrive on the table the whole game?
A: Unless specified otherwise, units off the table at the
end of the game count as destroyed and give full Victory
Points to your opponent [rules change]. This rule does
not apply to ‘Type: Flyer’ vehicles and units embarked on
transports at the end of the game.
Ref: RB.62.01, RB.85.03

By definition, this means that units aboard transports that never arrived would not count as destroyed. Might want to clear that up a bit.

Ah I see you did here, might want to add it up there.

RB.85.03 – Q: Do Vehicles that end the game off
the table give up Victory Points?
A: Unless specified otherwise, units off the table at the
end of the game count as destroyed and give full Victory
Points to your opponent [rules change]. This rule does
not apply to ‘Type: Flyer’ vehicles and units embarked on
transports (that are on the table) at the end of the game.
Ref: RB.62.01, RB.84I.06

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

Ok that's enough for one day. I'll take a look at the MCO and later stuff another time.

Few thinks I would like to see added. (hopefully I didn't just miss them)

-Turbo boosting bikes vs psycannons.
-Does a model with a Goblet of Spite hit skimmers on a 3+ in CC?
-Does Tigurius's Hood of Hellfire double the range of Fear of the Darkness?