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.

40k FAQ first cut done; getting peer reviewed; I'm leaving office and goin' to bed. Look for it tomorrow.

Hi

Another question, this time on painting evaluation for the GT and the Invitational around the inclusion of allies.

In terms of presentation, will you be considering the look of the allied section as a stand alone evaluation, or will you be considering how well the look of the allies blends together with the parent army.

For example:
I have some nicely painted Orks. The scheme revolves around traditional green skin, blood red and tin-to-chain metal, with blacks (with blue-grey highlighting) and browns filling out the rest.
I have some nicely painted Tau: The scheme revolves around Grey (grey scale), purple, and black with scaley green highlighting and orange accents.

Both are well done (IMHO), but they don't blend well (or at all really) because the schemes are radically different. Is the lack of cohesion likely to harm my painting evaluation?

Thanks,
Nate

TBD on that question, Nate. Leaning that they are judged independent of each other for purposes of cohesion, but I'm going back and forth on it with our appearance judge to feel out what is most fair / appropriate given the time constraints.

For certain, next year, it'll be that your allies have to have some kind of connection to your primaries in terms of appearance.

Additionally, draft of tourney FAQ is up here; please read intro carefully:
http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2012/07/nova-faq-v6th1-draft-for-input-and.html

Well I'll be darned. You decided on RAW for the FMC's....Didn't see that coming

You'll also have to add how your going to handle the new Daemon units issues once they come out on Friday

Mostly looks good. I don't see anything to crazy but I'll read it again later to make sure.

I'll have to say, after reading the Necron portion of the FAQ---I think that your clarifications are pretty elegant and thoughtful. In particular, I liked the way you handled the Death Ray.

One minor criticism if I may--is the wording of the MSS clarification. While I think the way you handled it is fair (Although it makes MSS substantially weaker and considerably less useful), the wording is pretty chunky. Why not;

"Mindshackle Scarabs vs. Challenges--Determine who is affected by MSS immediately at the start of the Fight sub-phase, before any challenges are made. Once a model is selected (either by being the only model in base to base or randomization if more than one more model is in base to base), the MSS affect will be applied regardless if the bearer subsequently moves out of base to base with that model. By rule, once the model is involved in the challenge, all subsequent MSS rolls will be resolved only against that model (as that model is the only model considered in base to base contact)."

Or something along those lines.


I didn't see a clarification regarding the Assault Vehicle rule and wrecks--are you allowing units the ability to assault the player turn after they are wrecked (Unlike normal transports)?

/The FMC ruling surprised me

How is NOVA going to handle Digital only rules? Are you guys going to FAQ that Hypeprphase swords are 'AP3' and Ork Fighta Aces can hit flyers at BS 3?

The digital flyers seriously upgraded how Dakkajet works and people seem super fighty about digital updates right now. I am planning to bring a dakkajet so I want to make sure I can shoot flyers with BS 3 without having to bring my iPad or get sucked into a philosophical debate about GWs business model.

It might be good to add all differences (can only think of two) to the FAQ.

Hulksmash wrote:Well I'll be darned. You decided on RAW for the FMC's....Didn't see that coming

Yay! Unkillable Fateweaver!

Not really unkillable, just tougher than he used to be

Hulksmash wrote:Not really unkillable, just tougher than he used to be

Which was nearly unkillable

Now that I can't Jaws him anymore, I'd say he's a much bigger problem...

Target wrote:

Hulksmash wrote:Not really unkillable, just tougher than he used to be

Which was nearly unkillable

Now your just being silly. Fateweaver never made it past 2 turns from him landing when I played against him and while flying is scary if you're already adjusting for 6th he won't be nearly as scary

If Fatewaever is flying can he still give rerolls to units on the ground?

Hulksmash wrote:

Target wrote:

Hulksmash wrote:Not really unkillable, just tougher than he used to be

Which was nearly unkillable

Now your just being silly. Fateweaver never made it past 2 turns from him landing when I played against him and while flying is scary if you're already adjusting for 6th he won't be nearly as scary

Psh Posh, 2 turns from him landing, and typically an entire army was firing at him to down him. Now he gets hit on 6's, so about ~50% less, meaning he lives quite a bit longer. Fateweaver before was a game where it took your army ~2 turns to kill fateweaver, then the rest of the game to go after the army that you'd largely ignored in lieu of fateweaver. It's a big difference. And we all know how games typically went where you didn't kill fateweaver before turn 4/5.

Will there be some sort of clarification about Powerweapons? Either that they must be model correctly and no changing power weapons game to game (so if someone has an axe they have an axe the entire tourney?)

Since lists will say 'powerweapon' peoplehave already begun saying it can be anything they want game-time decision. Physically modeling it may help lock people in but that doesn't stop people who have multiple sarges in their case to pull from.

nkelsch wrote:Will there be some sort of clarification about Powerweapons? Either that they must be model correctly and no changing power weapons game to game (so if someone has an axe they have an axe the entire tourney?)

Since lists will say 'powerweapon' peoplehave already begun saying it can be anything they want game-time decision. Physically modeling it may help lock people in but that doesn't stop people who have multiple sarges in their case to pull from.

Most of the tourney's I've been in since 6th have required that if you have a Power Weapon a) It has to be modeled correctly, and b) you must dictate on the list what it has as a weapon (so no changing game to game, as you state)

nkelsch wrote:Will there be some sort of clarification about Powerweapons? Either that they must be model correctly and no changing power weapons game to game (so if someone has an axe they have an axe the entire tourney?)

Since lists will say 'powerweapon' peoplehave already begun saying it can be anything they want game-time decision. Physically modeling it may help lock people in but that doesn't stop people who have multiple sarges in their case to pull from.

Woah! Who said they could choose at the time of the game? you have to have the weapon modeled to 'choose' and most folks/TOs are saying you need to have it on your list as well.

MVB said that you must specify on your list which one you chose over on the Nova forum.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That's crazy that people would magnetize or have multiple models to swap between games. How rude.

pretre wrote:

nkelsch wrote:Will there be some sort of clarification about Powerweapons? Either that they must be model correctly and no changing power weapons game to game (so if someone has an axe they have an axe the entire tourney?)

Since lists will say 'powerweapon' peoplehave already begun saying it can be anything they want game-time decision. Physically modeling it may help lock people in but that doesn't stop people who have multiple sarges in their case to pull from.

Woah! Who said they could choose at the time of the game? you have to have the weapon modeled to 'choose' and most folks/TOs are saying you need to have it on your list as well.

MVB said that you must specify on your list which one you chose over on the Nova forum.

I am saying I can't find that inside the FAQ and this was the first thing people have begun trying in 6th edition events. If I missed it in the FAQ, then I apologize.

I don't want to end up playing against people who tell me their swords are axes or change swords to axes when they see my list. The issue is if the list says 'power weapon' and he says it is an axe, I have no way of knowing what he played it as last game. So I am just asking it be clear. (and Digidex changes also be clear as people are complaining about digidex changes)

When I asked yesterday, he said it was in the player packet and he would add it to the FAQ.

You can't do 'swords are axes' by the rules since you can only field what is on the model.

Here's the thread:
http://nova.tlsconline.com/showthread.php?t=205

Me: Is it permitted to field DCA (or any model) that is listed in the Codex as having a Power Weapon with any of the listed variants in the Main Rulebook?

MVB: Yes. You must clarify what each model has as required on your army list, however. It's in the mission packet rules, but will be in the FAQ as well.

Yes, they have it down somewhere. Can't remember if it was in the FAQ or mission packet, but it was explicit.

Hulksmash wrote:Well I'll be darned. You decided on RAW for the FMC's....Didn't see that coming

You'll also have to add how your going to handle the new Daemon units issues once they come out on Friday

Mostly looks good. I don't see anything to crazy but I'll read it again later to make sure.

New Daemon units do need some rulings. Not sure whether to go with RAW or not, given WD. If they're written as clear additions to / revisions to existing entries in Caemons, I'm inclined to go with 5++ saves, Eternal. Could use someone linking me the entirety of the rules pics if they're somewhere; I'm running around and droiding it today, and it's tricky to navigate through forums/etc.

Additional answers appending ...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AgeOfEgos wrote:I'll have to say, after reading the Necron portion of the FAQ---I think that your clarifications are pretty elegant and thoughtful. In particular, I liked the way you handled the Death Ray.

One minor criticism if I may--is the wording of the MSS clarification. While I think the way you handled it is fair (Although it makes MSS substantially weaker and considerably less useful), the wording is pretty chunky. Why not;

"Mindshackle Scarabs vs. Challenges--Determine who is affected by MSS immediately at the start of the Fight sub-phase, before any challenges are made. Once a model is selected (either by being the only model in base to base or randomization if more than one more model is in base to base), the MSS affect will be applied regardless if the bearer subsequently moves out of base to base with that model. By rule, once the model is involved in the challenge, all subsequent MSS rolls will be resolved only against that model (as that model is the only model considered in base to base contact)."

Or something along those lines.


I didn't see a clarification regarding the Assault Vehicle rule and wrecks--are you allowing units the ability to assault the player turn after they are wrecked (Unlike normal transports)?

/The FMC ruling surprised me

Yeah, I need to word MSS clarification better. Long and short is, MSS randomization and Challenge issuance don't conflict and are both effectively simultaneous. Challenge(s) are issued while MSS is being randomized. There's no need to fully resolve the challenge process and move models around prior to finishing the other things that happen at start of fight sub-phase alongside the issuance of challenges.

I'll clarify Assault Vehicle rules and wrecks; good catch for something to do ... can you please post that up as a question in the NOVA rules forums? It helps me make sure I don't miss these things when I do the final revision! This applies to EVERYONE.

The FMC ruling is a necessary evil in my book; too much inference otherwise. That said, Flying Circus daemon armies are still eminently handle-able, so I'm not concerned about its impact on results and such. Frankly it further reinforces some of the meta changes to the type of army you should be bringing in the 6ed environment. That thought process is indie from the rules decision.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:How is NOVA going to handle Digital only rules? Are you guys going to FAQ that Hypeprphase swords are 'AP3' and Ork Fighta Aces can hit flyers at BS 3?

The digital flyers seriously upgraded how Dakkajet works and people seem super fighty about digital updates right now. I am planning to bring a dakkajet so I want to make sure I can shoot flyers with BS 3 without having to bring my iPad or get sucked into a philosophical debate about GWs business model.

It might be good to add all differences (can only think of two) to the FAQ.

I don't know if I'm going to specifically RULE on digital rules. I'm not surprised that there are people out there who would try and prevent you from using them, but they're not going to have any sway over rules judges at NOVA. Your digital rules are the most up-to-date ones for the dex. Roll with it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Blackmoor wrote:

Hulksmash wrote:Well I'll be darned. You decided on RAW for the FMC's....Didn't see that coming

Yay! Unkillable Fateweaver!

Borat-style NOT. I will say, the best way to tackle him isn't necessarily straight dakka anymore. More like, ground then assault ... the raw damage output of a flying circus is downright anemic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grimwulfe wrote:If Fatewaever is flying can he still give rerolls to units on the ground?

Yup, by RAW. He can also hide behind crap too. It's kinda weird. While I anticipate a GW rewrite via FAQ, and if that happens pre-NOVA we'll go with it, I'm not willing to outright change the rule myself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Target wrote:

Hulksmash wrote:

Target wrote:

Hulksmash wrote:Not really unkillable, just tougher than he used to be

Which was nearly unkillable

Now your just being silly. Fateweaver never made it past 2 turns from him landing when I played against him and while flying is scary if you're already adjusting for 6th he won't be nearly as scary

Psh Posh, 2 turns from him landing, and typically an entire army was firing at him to down him. Now he gets hit on 6's, so about ~50% less, meaning he lives quite a bit longer. Fateweaver before was a game where it took your army ~2 turns to kill fateweaver, then the rest of the game to go after the army that you'd largely ignored in lieu of fateweaver. It's a big difference. And we all know how games typically went where you didn't kill fateweaver before turn 4/5.

$.02 for Fateweaver heartburn from a couple folks, incl me:
http://nova.tlsconline.com/showthread.php?t=219


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:Will there be some sort of clarification about Powerweapons? Either that they must be model correctly and no changing power weapons game to game (so if someone has an axe they have an axe the entire tourney?)

Since lists will say 'powerweapon' peoplehave already begun saying it can be anything they want game-time decision. Physically modeling it may help lock people in but that doesn't stop people who have multiple sarges in their case to pull from.

Clarification is in Primer packet already, and will be in FAQ final revision.
Power Weapon = as modeled, but you must model it appropriately and put it on your army list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

RiTides wrote:Yes, they have it down somewhere. Can't remember if it was in the FAQ or mission packet, but it was explicit.

This is random from another thread where RiTides posted, but in general for folks - look for Kill Points to play a suppressed role in most of our missions for the final packet (8/1 release). This is in response to the base mission change where only 1/6 missions is a Kill Points one. You can anticipate that the effect will be along the lines of the margin required each round (may / will be variable), and the frequency with which Kill Points is the Primary or Secondary, vs. the Tertiary, of our goal tiering.

Bringing pure MSU can still get you in hot water when going up against a deathstar type army, but it will more reflect the impact of the new game rules / missions, and less 5ed. Keep in mind that the changes to scoring/denial (which we've also implemented in our Quarters goal) has a MUCH more meaningful impact on whether raw transport / vehicle / msu spam is better than Deathstar armies than KP did ... and make sure you're adjusting your own playstyles and army lists accordingly. It's a new wild world out there, and fortunately or unfortunately NOVA (and a couple others) are right on the frontier for 2012.

MVBrandt wrote:

Hulksmash wrote:Well I'll be darned. You decided on RAW for the FMC's....Didn't see that coming

You'll also have to add how your going to handle the new Daemon units issues once they come out on Friday

Mostly looks good. I don't see anything to crazy but I'll read it again later to make sure.

New Daemon units do need some rulings. Not sure whether to go with RAW or not, given WD. If they're written as clear additions to / revisions to existing entries in Caemons, I'm inclined to go with 5++ saves, Eternal. Could use someone linking me the entirety of the rules pics if they're somewhere; I'm running around and droiding it today, and it's tricky to navigate through forums/etc.

Additional answers appending ...

I'll get you a copy when I get a chance. Don't have it loaded at work. The main issue I see is that RAW they don't have any save....

I laid it out on the forum but the way it reads is that the new Daemons have the Daemon special rule. The problem is that since they go into the 40k codex the daemon rule defines their noted saves as being invulnerable. The FAQ also adds Fear to the army entry page but the book still uses a different Daemon rule. And the entries in the photos don't have a save noted. Meaning by RAW they wouldn't have a save. Intent would likely be the 5++ but that's not what it says. I bring it up because with the new units being pretty dang sweet people will be using and some slightly.....neurotic people may make an issue of it.

MVBrandt wrote:This is random from another thread where RiTides posted, but in general for folks - look for Kill Points to play a suppressed role in most of our missions for the final packet (8/1 release). This is in response to the base mission change where only 1/6 missions is a Kill Points one. You can anticipate that the effect will be along the lines of the margin required each round (may / will be variable), and the frequency with which Kill Points is the Primary or Secondary, vs. the Tertiary, of our goal tiering.

Bringing pure MSU can still get you in hot water when going up against a deathstar type army, but it will more reflect the impact of the new game rules / missions, and less 5ed. Keep in mind that the changes to scoring/denial (which we've also implemented in our Quarters goal) has a MUCH more meaningful impact on whether raw transport / vehicle / msu spam is better than Deathstar armies than KP did ... and make sure you're adjusting your own playstyles and army lists accordingly. It's a new wild world out there, and fortunately or unfortunately NOVA (and a couple others) are right on the frontier for 2012.

Thanks for addressing that... and it's good to hear! Not that I am going pure MSU or anything, but since I have a lot of drop pods, and with how fragile vehicles are now, kill points being dominant would sink my battleship...

Mike, how are you ruling Soul Devourer on C:CD MCs? It makes the daemon "count as wielding a power weapon", so if the model had a staff, would that mean they have +2 strength for 10 points?

Ok since the FMC is consider to be swooping even after I ground it. Does that mean every time I shot at it after I ground it the first time I dont get the out of control rule again? or because you are enforcing the Swooping and every time I hit it they have to make the grounding roll?

It's RAW. So they would take a grounding test on any unit that hits his FMC. This could result in multiple failed tests in a single shooting phase.

When are lists due? Do we need tpo pre-submit or is that done day of?

Lists will be due for the 40k GT day of this year. We'll have all lists double checked (minimum) by the end of Friday. Presubmission at this large a scale just proved unwieldy last year - people change their lists after submission (and reasonable fun-time hobby event organizers know if someone changes their list post-submission and shows up at event with something different, you can't/don't tell them they don't get to play), or simply don't do it in time, etc.

That said, presubmission is required for the Narrative (when you register, or August 1, whichever comes latest), and may be required for other events - check individual event rules.

Mike, are there any VIP bags left? I know it still says 9 but I just wanted to confirm.

So I'm a bit confused. Can heavy support fliers count for quarters in mission 1, and fast attack fliers claim/deny objectives in mission 2? I didn't see any clause forbidding it, but I thought I read on the whiskey blog that fliers will "*never*" score?

Did I miss something in the packet or do fliers indeed score under these circumstances?

Also just double checking, the new demons in the White Dwarf issue will be legal since they released last weekend?