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.

 DarkCorsair wrote:

krootman. wrote:
Man I sure feel left out of the invitational, all the cool kids will be in it!

Trust me, you'll have just as good a time not being in it. It's a great event, but thirteen games is as tiring as it sounds.

Hahah no I know I was just joking, I have a lot of friends in the invitational.

For those not burning themselves out during the day and still with nothing filling their evening, why not join the increasingly large contingent of people trying the most unique and different format of "Narrative" event out there?

http://www.novaopen.com/?page_id=910

Primer's been updated / polished up some more, and of course there's the Teaser Trailer.

Is there a mechanism for submitting questions that we think may come up in games at NOVA that have come up our FLGS/Club? I'll just throw this question out anyway - I submitted it in YMDC but didn't get a response:

Can an exarch use fast shot with the aegis defense lines gun? The reason I ask is the wording in fast shot on page 30 of the codex. It says he can fire one more shot than is normally shot for "his" weapon. Since anyone can fire the aegis gun does that make it his gun? Also, in the description of fast shot they list example weapons that can be selected specifically by exarchs. I'm thinking GW is referring to the exarch's personal weapons from his entry. I played against someone who used an exarch on the aegis lascannon gun and I just couldn't believe the stuff he was able to do with it against my necron flyers. After reading fast shot I'm starting to wonder though...

Don't take this for gold as I haven't looked at the new codex to know if the wording is any different, but you absolutely could do that in the old Eldar codex.

Mike will probably chime in with a more legitimate answer, alternatively they're trying to gather any extra FAQ submissions over on this page http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2013/07/final-mission-packet-notice-faq-call-out.html

That's an affirmative on fast shot for emplaced weapons / gun emplacements.

 necron99 wrote:
I played against someone who used an exarch on the aegis lascannon gun and I just couldn't believe the stuff he was able to do with it against my necron flyers. After reading fast shot I'm starting to wonder though...

Really? One of the very few ways that Eldar have to deal with flyers, and you could not believe that he shot one down?

And it is actually less nasty than the old FD exarch trick from the last codex.

Tau Farsight supplement leaked

Keep this in mind, and we'll send this out in newsletters:

The leaked info is EXTREMELY POORLY WRITTEN. While it's more or less clear what's what, you have to read it a couple times to figure out wtf they're trying to say is actually legal, and what takes up what FOC, etc.

Keep posted for very clear statements on it.

It will be legal for NOVA IF and ONLY IF:
1) It releases as planned on July 20 (tomorrow)
2) It releases for more than JUST Apple products

People who show up with illegal lists b/c they rush or read poorly from it are not going to be given a pass on illegal list rules at NOVA proper.

As obviously broken as it is then why would you allow it in?

Just wondering, there was a big brew over unbalanced 40k Approved material that was banned from the main event but you will allow this in?

Why?

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
As obviously broken as it is then why would you allow it in?

Just wondering, there was a big brew over unbalanced 40k Approved material that was banned from the main event but you will allow this in?

Why?

He did not say it was broken.

He said that it has to be released with enough time for people to digest it, and it has to be available to a wide a wide variety of people, not just iPad owners.

Don't bother Blackmoor. He's just making another FW legality argument. He's doing it over in N&R too.

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
big brew over unbalanced 40k Approved material

Is that code for forge world? If so, just say forge world and don't try to spin it with your own label.

Nope, just making a point...

If something is broken enough to attract the core competitors then many are willing to overlook that it is not a core codex and just a supplement and they are willing to do that it for advantage..

It is broken...and I am willing to bet 1/2 of the players are looking at showing up with it now.

There are two types of Forge World by the way, those never meant for 40K and just for APOC and those that do have a 40K stamp on them.

So now we have a "supplement" that is obviously broken and everyone is OK with that since they are probably going to show up with a list based on it.

If the 40K approved supplement material is not allowed because it is deemed broken or unfamiliar I have a hard time understanding why everyone is in such a hurry to get this OK ed for the main event. Where was the testing?

The other forum is already filled with ways this supplement material can be abused legally.

Do not get me wrong, I support the supplement being banned, not the 40K approved suddenly getting approved for the main event.

I was just saying the wording of some of the rules is very poorly done. Thinking they are broken is on you. If you are a forge world fan, come play it at NOVA.

That said, open hostility over forge world seems a little uncalled for, no?

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
So now we have a "supplement" that is obviously broken and everyone is OK with that since they are probably going to show up with a list based on it.

How is it "obviously" broken? You need to explain yourself, because from what (admittedly little) I've seen of these rules it doesn't seem a ban is justified or necessary.

ENOUGH with the FW digression.

Farsight primary question / issue with rules as written, feel free to add your inputs:

http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2013/07/farsight-enclaves-getting-rules-corect.html

MVBrandt wrote:
Tau Farsight supplement leaked

Keep this in mind, and we'll send this out in newsletters:

The leaked info is EXTREMELY POORLY WRITTEN. While it's more or less clear what's what, you have to read it a couple times to figure out wtf they're trying to say is actually legal, and what takes up what FOC, etc.

Keep posted for very clear statements on it.

It will be legal for NOVA IF and ONLY IF:
1) It releases as planned on July 20 (tomorrow)
2) It releases for more than JUST Apple products

People who show up with illegal lists b/c they rush or read poorly from it are not going to be given a pass on illegal list rules at NOVA proper.

WD only mentions Digital release for iPad only. Is the rumor atm. I dont have the WD yet.

Actually Scratch that. It is already available: http://www.blacklibrary.com/Home/Search-Results.html?filter_type=6&filter_Action=0&filter_name=SearchTerm&submit=GO&filter_value=Farsight

You can view with adobe digital edition on comp.

Already seeing errors in it though. They copy and pasted the riptide wargear under the next IC Bravestorm. Will need faq'd cause it says he is a riptide MC as well when he obviously isn't.

Also with Farsight Enclave able to ally with Tau I can see people running 160 kroot now.

After reading it a few time and seeing all the people arguing over it. I cant use it. I will have to wait for clear wording on some of this if it is going to work. As it stands now too much is left open for interpretation. A.K.A. IMHO the supplemental codex is currently unplayable.

If it's poorly edited and contentious, it's unusable in a tourney setting.

The options faced are definitely 3-fold on this one ...

1. No Farsight = No special bodyguard
2. Farsight = irrelevant to special bodyguard
3. Major questions fundamental to list design and requiring GW FAQ are too ambiguous for allowing Farsight supplement in time for NOVA


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Update

Pending confirmation tonight from 40k Head Judge:

Farsight required to access Command Team.

Signature Systems and Shadowsun/Aun'va restrictions limited to Farsight Enclaves detachments.

I vote either one or two. But I could understand if you decided to nix it entirely.

 Hulksmash wrote:
I vote either one or two. But I could understand if you decided to nix it entirely.

Nixing it is an extreme final. So far the judges, and most people surveyed for external input (not all of course), think generally #1 is the way to go, and also that Sig Systems and Shadowsun/Aun'va restrictions are not for the whole army at all, but just for Farsight Enclaves detachments.

I think this is one of those situations where it's very easy to get myopic and obsessed w/ RAW for personal advantage or preference after seeing potentially powerful combos (i.e., opponents of Tau don't want to see them get Engram Chips/etc. in one detachment while having the other sig sys in the other detachment, even though that's the extremely likely intent and probable import of the RAW as well). Similar to the parenthetical, every bit of reason and most of the RAW imply Farsight is a requisite who takes up a FOC for the Command Team, and it's hard to argue otherwise dispassionately from a broader view. BUT because the rules were imprecisely written, it's possible and even perhaps easy to make a passionate "RAW!!!" argument to the contrary of both, even though such arguments may very well be highly unreasonable.

So we're leaning right now, again pending our 40k Head Judge making the final arbitration:
1) Farsight is required within the Enclaves Detachment to access the Command Team, and himself takes up a FOC
2) Enclaves restrictions regarding Signature Systems, Shadowsun, and Aun'va apply to the Enclaves Detachment, even though in most situations "Army" refers to both detachments

+1 on the above solution, seems the most sensible

I'd be fine with that resolution. Meshes up well with the way I was intending to use it until an FAQ and how my local was viewing it.

One FAQ question I definitely need answered before I build my final list is: Can Runic Weapons use their 4+ cancel to nullify the use of a Force Weapon's Instant Death activation?

The trigger is stated to be the passing of a psychic test (which would involve a Force Weapon), but it says the result is that "power" is cancelled. A Force Weapon, of course, does not involve any power.

It's perhaps worth noting that Deny the Witch rolls may not be taken against a Force Weapon.

Any help would be appreciated.

IIRC the RAW on this is that Runic Weapons nullify the effect of a power when a psychic test to cast one is successfully passed. As far as I know, Force Weapons are no longer considered powers.

Unless I'm missing something, that should be the RAW on it / no FAQ required (I could put this in if you'd like - though we try to keep from answering questions directly addressed by the rules in the book in order to ensure *RELATIVE* brevity for purposes of printing a copy of the FAQ into every attendee's guidebook.

All of the tau Farsight enclave characters are labeled as IC's and have their own point systems. Nothing I see states farsight is needed to take them. Only that if you take him they can all be taken as a retinue to him without losing a Force org spot.

The only option that enables you to take them is as part of the Farsight Command Team. Taking the Team is required for taking any of the characters ... they're all a part of the eight. This si explicitly stated in their rules - they are not each an HQ choice; they are a Unit of IC's that can be taken, count as one HQ, and do not take up a FOC (though of course they can all be deployed as per the IC rules).

It is obvious from the RAI that they're a substitute for his bodyguard, but we're not going off that (certainly not JUST that).

The key word is the use of "other" in the enabling of them as selections; it refers to taking from the other seven, obviously referring to Farsight as NOT one of the "other." (If you argue it's NOT referring to Farsight, we need someone to enable taking any of them in the first place, or else you can't take any ... you need someone to be from whom "other" applies).

Being an IC and having your own point value has nothing to do with where you sit in the FOC and how you can be taken - case in point: Corbulo and Sanguinary Priests cannot be taken as independent HQ slot choices just because they are IC's and have their own [different] points. They must be taken as Elites, in groups of 1-3.

The permission to take any of the other 7 is explicitly after you've taken SOME (poorly written here) other model. Otherwise, instead of saying "This special unit is an HQ choice that does not take up a Force Organisation slot and consists of up to seven other battlesuits chosen from the Eight" it would state: "This special unit is an HQ choice that does not take up a Force Organisation slot and consists of up to seven battlesuits chosen from the Eight." There's also a risk of hyper-RAW myopia in not recognizing the context of a paragraph where FARSIGHT'S Command Unit being used prevents the use of his REGULAR BODYGUARD UNIT and where of EIGHT models, seven OTHER ones can be taken if you select this Unit.

There's no getting around the restriction placed upon the unit by that sentence ... it tells you where it sits, and how you can take any models from it.


PS - This is a pass through of some of the logic being followed by our rules guys and those offering input (mostly) in terms of how the rulings are being arrived at. I'm not looking to turn this post into YMDC (and find it curious there is no YMDC thread yet ... or wasn't for much of the day). Just hoping to be transparent and helpful rather than issuing forth rulings from the void with little to no rationale behind them. We're giving this one a lot of analysis and thought, to make sure our ruling is reasonable.

MVBrandt wrote:
The only option that enables you to take them is as part of the Farsight Command Team. Taking the Team is required for taking any of the characters ... they're all a part of the eight. This si explicitly stated in their rules - they are not each an HQ choice; they are a Unit of IC's that can be taken, count as one HQ, and do not take up a FOC (though of course they can all be deployed as per the IC rules).

It is obvious from the RAI that they're a substitute for his bodyguard, but we're not going off that (certainly not JUST that).

The key word is the use of "other" in the enabling of them as selections; it refers to taking from the other seven, obviously referring to Farsight as NOT one of the "other." (If you argue it's NOT referring to Farsight, we need someone to enable taking any of them in the first place, or else you can't take any ... you need someone to be from whom "other" applies).

Being an IC and having your own point value has nothing to do with where you sit in the FOC and how you can be taken - case in point: Corbulo and Sanguinary Priests cannot be taken as independent HQ slot choices just because they are IC's and have their own [different] points. They must be taken as Elites, in groups of 1-3.

The permission to take any of the other 7 is explicitly after you've taken SOME (poorly written here) other model. Otherwise, instead of saying "This special unit is an HQ choice that does not take up a Force Organisation slot and consists of up to seven other battlesuits chosen from the Eight" it would state: "This special unit is an HQ choice that does not take up a Force Organisation slot and consists of up to seven battlesuits chosen from the Eight." There's also a risk of hyper-RAW myopia in not recognizing the context of a paragraph where FARSIGHT'S Command Unit being used prevents the use of his REGULAR BODYGUARD UNIT and where of EIGHT models, seven OTHER ones can be taken if you select this Unit.

There's no getting around the restriction placed upon the unit by that sentence ... it tells you where it sits, and how you can take any models from it.


PS - This is a pass through of some of the logic being followed by our rules guys and those offering input (mostly) in terms of how the rulings are being arrived at. I'm not looking to turn this post into YMDC (and find it curious there is no YMDC thread yet ... or wasn't for much of the day). Just hoping to be transparent and helpful rather than issuing forth rulings from the void with little to no rationale behind them. We're giving this one a lot of analysis and thought, to make sure our ruling is reasonable.

I concur. Its a hot mess but your reasoning is the most sound that can be derived from Wards awesome rules. Now just: Markerlights carry over? Farsights warlord trait is from codex tau but he is required to take one from the Enclave codex.