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.

Howdy everyone,

Attached below is the latest version (v3.2) of the Independent National Warhammer 40,000 Tournament FAQ (INAT FAQ), produced primarily for Adepticon 2010...and barring any additional GW FAQs will be the last update until after Adepticon.

This updated version now covers the new Tyranids codex that was released in January and brings the Space Wolves section back into line with GW's rulings in their official Space Wolves FAQ (which was released after INAT v3.1).

As always, any questions/rulings that have been altered from the 3.1 version have been denoted as such with a 'plus sign' ( + ) before the question # and have their 'answer text' colored red (just as with the 3.1 version) to make it easy for you to spot what has been changed. We have indeed altered/reversed a few rulings previously made in the 3.1 version of the FAQ based on user feedback, so please make sure you take the time to quickly scan over the whole document to see what has changed.


Also attached to the post below is the brand new INAT Appendix v1.0. This brings back all the Imperial Armor/Apocalypse questions we used to have in the INAT into a separate document so only those playing in a tournament allowing such rules (such as at Adepticon) need to bother with all those additional questions and answers.


Further feedback for future iterations of the FAQ is always welcome and can be done so in this thread or by sending an email to:

adepticon@gmail.com


As always, thanks again to everyone who helped out this process by giving us quality feedback and constructive criticism. We certainly appreciate it!



CORRECTIONS TO THE INAT FAQ v3.2

Thanks to community feedback it has come to light that a few unneeded or clearly wrong questions/rulings found their way into the latest version of the FAQ. I take full and complete responsibility for these mistakes, with the caveat that we were working with a highly accelerated timeline in order to get this INAT update out in time for players to digest its contents before Adepticon. Trying to get all the Tyranid questions and rulings written as well as all of the Imperial Armor and Apocalypse stuff at the same time lead to me having to spend quite a few nights working into the wee hours of the morning. Anytime a schedule is so rushed I think at least a few errors are unfortunately to be expected.

As we don't want to make players download a new version of the FAQ within too short a time period, we will be holding off re-issuing an INAT update likely until GW releases their official Tyranid FAQ (or their next codex, whichever comes first), when that happens we'll try to revise the INAT in order to remove rulings that are redundant with the official FAQ and reverse any of our rulings that contradict theirs.

Until that time, the following list of corrections will have to do:

TYR.48E.01 (Spore Mine Deep Striking over enemy models) -- This question and ruling will be removed in the next version of the INAT as Spore Mine Deep Striking now occurs before deployment of models. This ruling was improperly held over from the previous version of the FAQ.

TYR.59C.01 (Deathleaper reducing a unit's movement through Difficult Terrain) -- This question and ruling will be removed in the next version of the INAT as the rules clearly state that Deathleaper only reduces difficult terrain movement down to a minimum of 1D6. This was included when I accidentally didn't notice that clause existed and improperly assumed it worked the same as the Banehammer's special rule, which doesn't contain such a minimum clause.

Heh, Spirit Leech can effect units inside vehicles?

Chimera parking lots are going to dig that spore coming down.


I don't quite understand the Hive Tyrant/Tyrant Guard rules, could be me missing it. At one point the FAQ states it is one unit in close combat (Retinue?). At another point though, it answers a question about what would happen if the Hive Tyrant is killed before the Tyrant Guard attack (Indicating he can be picked out in close combat). Which is it?

And by dig it, you mean kill it with Inquisitor/Mystic/Pyscannon combos.

AgeOfEgos wrote:Heh, Spirit Leech can effect units inside vehicles?

Chimera parking lots are going to dig that spore coming down.

With units inside getting cover saves against wounds inflicted by Spirit Leech you're talking about an average of less than 2-3 wounds if the Embarked unit has at least Ld8. All in all it seems like a good compromise of following what the rules seem to indicate...but personally I hope GW comes out with its FAQ and changes the rules of the game disallowing embarked units from every suffering wounds, but that would be a change to the rules as written (even though it has never really come up before) and it was a big enough change that we didn't really feel comfortable making...that's more of something GW has to jump on and do themselves if they want.

I don't quite understand the Hive Tyrant/Tyrant Guard rules, could be me missing it. At one point the FAQ states it is one unit in close combat (Retinue?). At another point though, it answers a question about what would happen if the Hive Tyrant is killed before the Tyrant Guard attack (Indicating he can be picked out in close combat). Which is it?

They do form a single unit (i.e. the Tyrant can't be picked out in combat or by shooting), but the 2nd question you're referring to is about whether or not the Tyrant Guard's 'Furious Charge' ability can suddenly kick-in in the middle of a combat if the Tyrant dies...please remember with wound allocation it is entirely possible for the Tyrant to die in combat through bad armor saving throws before all of his Tyrant Guard do!

yakface wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:Heh, Spirit Leech can effect units inside vehicles?

Chimera parking lots are going to dig that spore coming down.

With units inside getting cover saves against wounds inflicted by Spirit Leech you're talking about an average of less than 2-3 wounds if the Embarked unit has at least Ld8. All in all it seems like a good compromise of following what the rules seem to indicate...but personally I hope GW comes out with its FAQ and changes the rules of the game disallowing embarked units from every suffering wounds, but that would be a change to the rules as written (even though it has never really come up before) and it was a big enough change that we didn't really feel comfortable making...that's more of something GW has to jump on and do themselves if they want.

I don't quite understand the Hive Tyrant/Tyrant Guard rules, could be me missing it. At one point the FAQ states it is one unit in close combat (Retinue?). At another point though, it answers a question about what would happen if the Hive Tyrant is killed before the Tyrant Guard attack (Indicating he can be picked out in close combat). Which is it?

They do form a single unit (i.e. the Tyrant can't be picked out in combat or by shooting), but the 2nd question you're referring to is about whether or not the Tyrant Guard's 'Furious Charge' ability can suddenly kick-in in the middle of a combat if the Tyrant dies...please remember with wound allocation it is entirely possible for the Tyrant to die in combat through bad armor saving throws before all of his Tyrant Guard do!

Right, I'm with you regarding balance/cover saves....I was mainly surprised you allowed something to effect units inside vehicles.

The ruling regarding the Tyrant also kind of surprised me. I figured it would be 'They form a retinue and he may never leave it'. I could see a Flyrant walking/running around with Tyrant Guard then jumping out to go eat units once it got close.

I like the compromise with the DoM. Absent any real clarification from GW, having it affect models in a vehicle and giving them cover seems like a reasonable answer. As much fun and really wierd as it would be for the unit to be able to GtG in a vehicle, I can see a few good reasons to disallow it.

Since you're in an explaining mode, how is it that Mawlocs (and I noticed you all went back and added this to other sections, such as the monolith, as well) are allowed to deep strike without placing the model on the table, as the rules on page 95 clearly state?

I'm very disappointed in this latest set of "clarifications". In the past, the INT has been very conservative with regard to the interpretation of questionable rules. Disallowing a lash sorcerer joined to a unit from moving the target prior to a flamer in that unit from working, disallowing deff rollas from affecting vehicles, and generally erring on the side of caution.

Every questionable ruling on the tyranids is the liberal interpretation, in favour of the tyranid army. How you can claim that it's balanced to allow a hive tyrant to claim a cover save when he and a guard stand behind a couple of gaunts, but it's unbalanced to let a deff rolla hit a vehicle is beyond me.

AgeOfEgos wrote:
Right, I'm with you regarding balance/cover saves....I was mainly surprised you allowed something to effect units inside vehicles.

The ruling regarding the Tyrant also kind of surprised me. I figured it would be 'They form a retinue and he may never leave it'. I could see a Flyrant walking/running around with Tyrant Guard then jumping out to go eat units once it got close.

Well, with Spirit Leech, the problem is that all units within range are affected, period. And the rules for embarked units clearly say that you measure to the vehicle's hull for things affecting embarked units. Now, GW went and ruled in their FAQ regarding psychic powers that they can't affect embarked units, but this WAS a rule change, and as written only applies to psychic powers.

So when you get to Spirit Leech, you have a (non-psychic power) special rule that affects all units within its range...there is absolutely no basis in the rules, or even in the fluff why this ability shouldn't affect embarked units. The only strike against is really that up until this point there hasn't really been anything in the game that is able to cause wounds against embarked units. But that alone doesn't mean it isn't what GW intended to happen.

So there were some voting that thought we should just step up and make a rule change disallowing Spirit Leech from affecting embarked units, but again, at the end of the day the rules DO seem to allow it, so really if GW doesn't want something like this from occurring they need to make the rules change themselves like they did with psychic powers affecting embarked units.


As for the Tyrant Guard, again its a tough call because the rules are really sloppily written. Besides Space Wolf Fenrisian Wolves, GW has shown a clear trend since the start of its 5th edition style codexes (starting back in 4th edition with the Dark Angels) to not using the 'retinue' rules anymore. So how they chose to include the rule allowing a Tyrant to join Tyrant Guard is perplexing.

At the end of the day we made this ruling based upon how we think most people would generally interpret the rules and choose to play it naturally...of course we could be dead wrong, but we were kind of under a bit of a time crunch to get this update out in time for Adpepticon which didn't leave us the normal amount of time to see how people are playing with a new codex before making a ruling about it.

Again, hopefully GW will rule on this topic before Adepticon, but my rough guess would be that they will rule the same way we did on this one...although I've been surprised many times before, so who knows (or if they'll even rule on it)!

yakface wrote:
So there were some voting that thought we should just step up and make a rule change disallowing Spirit Leech from affecting embarked units...

It would have been more consistent with how questionable rules in other codexes have been handled. Look at the daemonic gift, "Aura of Decay". You have ruled (according to the + sign next to it in this version of the FAQ) that because it is a shooting power, it needs line of sight. Spirit Leech is also a shooting power (used in the shooting phase) - why does it not need line of sight? Or why does Aura of Decay? I mena, this isn't even consistent with rulings made from the same update to the FAQ? Why are nids getting such liberal interpretations compared to every other codex?

How many INAT members play nids? It seems like there is some sort of a bias here, and I doubt it's conscious, but the approach taken with the nid questions isn't consistent with the other codexes.

Redbeard wrote:Since you're in an explaining mode, how is it that Mawlocs (and I noticed you all went back and added this to other sections, such as the monolith, as well) are allowed to deep strike without placing the model on the table, as the rules on page 95 clearly state?

Regarding the Mawloc and Deep Strike (and the same ruling applies to Spore Mines, Monoliths, Pylons, etc), there are two ways to interpret the whole 'place the initial Deep Striking model on the table' (sorry I'm paraphrasing here, as I don't have my rulebook on me at the moment).


1) That 'on the table' means the model must physically be placed on the tabletop (i.e. not on top of any other models). The problem with this interpretation is that there is no definition of what exactly constitutes 'the table'. Is putting the model on a hill count as being on the 'table'? Does putting the model on a building count as putting it on the 'table'? Etc. Obviously you can step in and define what constitutes 'the table' in this case, but it is a judgement call you have to make in order to play with this interpretation.


2) The 2nd interpretation of 'on the table' is simply that 'the table' represent the area you're playing on (i.e. typically the 4'x6' playing area). As long as you place the initial model anywhere within this area, you're fulfilling the rule.


We obviously fall into the camp adhering to the 2nd interpretation.

I think another way to choose to play this way is because most people (I've encountered) seem to recognize that the initial Deep Strike placement doesn't really count as the model sitting there in the game...it is essentially a marker that may or may not end up being the final place where the Deep Striking model/unit arrives.

A good example of this is the Space Marine Drop Pod. There were a few people who played that the initial placement of the model meant 'that's where it was' on the table and then if it scattered, this scatter represented a 'move' and therefore this 'move' would be interrupted by contacting an enemy unit, for example. The net result of this interpretation was that even if they player rolled a high enough scatter distance to take the Drop Pod COMPLETELY OVER an enemy unit they would still claim that the Pod 'stopped' when it hit the enemy unit because its initial placement meant it WAS on the table.

Besides my own personal experiences, I also took a poll here on Dakka:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/221120.page

Although the number of votes is low, you can see that the results are VERY lopsided. Most people seem to play that the initial placement of the Drop Pod doesn't really count as it being 'on the table'.


Of course, that vote was for a particular situation and some of the same people may vote completely different when asked the specific question about the Mawloc, but when trying to establish a sense of consistency throughout our rulings, I think it is important to at least TRY to take rulings based on similar principles into account.

I'm very disappointed in this latest set of "clarifications". In the past, the INT has been very conservative with regard to the interpretation of questionable rules. Disallowing a lash sorcerer joined to a unit from moving the target prior to a flamer in that unit from working, disallowing deff rollas from affecting vehicles, and generally erring on the side of caution.

Every questionable ruling on the tyranids is the liberal interpretation, in favour of the tyranid army. How you can claim that it's balanced to allow a hive tyrant to claim a cover save when he and a guard stand behind a couple of gaunts, but it's unbalanced to let a deff rolla hit a vehicle is beyond me.

Well, we're certainly far from perfect, so all I can recommend is that if you can take the time to write up your points in a nice coherent summary of where you think we went wrong and why we will absolutely take it into consideration for the next update (which we're doing after the release of each new codex now). We've reversed rulings in the past that in hindsight we feel like we blew and we'll continue to do so. The more salient feedback we get the better!

And one last thing: We did originally rule to allow the Deff Rolla to work during Rams, it was only because we were trying to match the UK GT house rules (and they claimed that they had inside information from the studio that if GW ever ruled on the matter they would rule against it) that we changed ours. I still believe the rules as written technically allow it...


I hope that explains things a bit!





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Redbeard wrote:

yakface wrote:
So there were some voting that thought we should just step up and make a rule change disallowing Spirit Leech from affecting embarked units...

It would have been more consistent with how questionable rules in other codexes have been handled. Look at the daemonic gift, "Aura of Decay". You have ruled (according to the + sign next to it in this version of the FAQ) that because it is a shooting power, it needs line of sight. Spirit Leech is also a shooting power (used in the shooting phase) - why does it not need line of sight? Or why does Aura of Decay? I mena, this isn't even consistent with rulings made from the same update to the FAQ? Why are nids getting such liberal interpretations compared to every other codex?

How many INAT members play nids? It seems like there is some sort of a bias here, and I doubt it's conscious, but the approach taken with the nid questions isn't consistent with the other codexes.

The BIG difference is that 'Aura of Decay' clearly states that it is a 'ranged weapon' in its rules. Spirit Leech is just a special rule that is used in the Shooting Phase. If there was any indication at all that Spirit Leech was some sort of shooting attack then believe me, we would be ruling the exact same way, but it IS different. It is just a special rule that affects all units within a certain distance and happens at the start of the shooting phase. There is no indication that it counts as the model's shooting attack for the turn and there is no indication at all that it needs line of sight.

Again, I hope GW steps in and clarifies what they wrote, but as they wrote it, it really does appear that it should affect embarked units.



As for what members of the council are playing, I've played Tyranids in the past, but my army's not really playable now...I know some others have Tyranid armies too, but I couldn't tell you who (if any) will be using any Tyranids this year at Adepticon. The only thing I know for sure is that my team won't be!

I can say this -

1) I am on the INAT team.
2) I do not actively play nids. I have some genestealers and the like, but have no interest in playing nids.
3) I am more than comfortable with all the rulings that were made with the INAT.

Alex - if we operated with the degree of transparency that people such as yourself desire, we would grind ourselves into the ground. I can say that the INAT staff is stretched to our limits. Not only do we diligently work to provide a quality document that the community can use if they choose, but also put on one of the highest quality shows (AdeptiCon) that the world has seen. This all along with balancing our personal and professional lives without any true benefit beyond the knowledge that we are hopefully helping community members remove potential arguments during game play and increase the chances of having a fun time.

The INAT team has no desire for person gain from our work. All of the professionals that I work with on this team are above such pettiness. The desire for personal gain would compromise the integrity of the document itself and for what? Personal glory in miniature games. We all have far better things to do with our time.

Here is a quick run down of the shooting phase and how it relates to Spirit Leach

1.) Check LOS & Pick a Target Spirit Leach is exempt from both. It neither requires LOS or picks a Target.

2.) Check Range. It does have a range and you do check range.

3.) Roll to Hit. Spirit Leach is exempt

4.) Roll to Wound. Spirit Leach is exempt

5.) Take Saving Throws. Spirit Leach disallows armor saves, cover was debated, and Invulnerable is clear

6.) Remove Casualties.


Since Saving Throws, and Casualty removal are fairly universal to any phase (movement-Dangerous terrrain, assualt etc.) the first 4, seem to clearly define a shooting attack.

In this case the Spirit Leach (SL) is exempted from 75% of the shooting attack rules. Furthermore, the DoM has an attack defined as a shooting attack that follows the normal rules for shooting. Finally, SL happens at the start of BOTH players shooting phases.

These factors combined, lead the council to consider SL as something other than a shooting attack. It is also not defined as a psychic power so you are left with something that is neither a shooting attack or psychic power.

Hence, all we were left with is this BBB page 66

"If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicles hull" (Its shooting refers to the shooting of the embarked unit)

Thus, the logic flow goes like this:

Is the transport within 6"... YES

Since the SL effects UNITS and not models (more on this in a bit) by definition the embarked UNIT is considered in range of SL.

Why rule differently for Nurgle's Rot?

Nurgle's Rot is a Psychic power and by GW's FAQ, units in transports cannot be affected by psychic powers.

Why Rule differently for Aura of Decay (AoD)?

Page 75 Codex Daemons

"Aura of Decay is a ranged weapon, but the daemon maybe in close combat at the time it uses it, as may the targets. When used all enemy Models within 6" of the daemon automatically suffer a Str 2 hit with AP-

Two distinct differences are noted at this point:

1.) AoD is a range weapon. SL is never described as such, it is simply listed as a passive ability that occurs at the beginning of each shooting phase.
2.) The power effects Models not units. While the rulebook is clear that measuring range to a "Unit" is done by measuring to the hull it makes no such distinction for models.

Since it is impossible to tell which "models" of a unit would be in range and because AoD behaves more like a shooting attack than SL we determined it not to affect units in a transport.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Whew,

All that stated, it is my hope that GW produces a viable FAQ covering DoM and Spirit Leach ASAP. It doesn't matter which way they go on the issue, I will be happy to play it either way. It isn't about personal bias on the INAT Council it is about:

"The purpose of this FAQ is to give players advance knowledge of how tournament judges will be ruling the myriad of tricky situations that arise in games of 40k at the event they are planning to attend."

-INAT FAQ page 2

Happy Gaming,

Chris

Yeah just the deffrolla thingy;
I don't understand why when the rules make it work (& there being fluff from the codex about it too “Steamrolling enemy infantry and light vehicles,”)) the choice made is to go against these things is based on what? Vehicles not being units or a ram not being a type of tank-shock? Which parts were taken into consideration when this was discussed?

I emailed these to the adepticon@gmail address but will post them here for consumption as well.


TYR.51B.03 and TYR.58B.02 state that cover saves may be taken against Terror From The Deep and Spirit Leech.

The wording on the former states that a unit "suffers a number of S6, AP2 equal to the number of models [under the marker]" and the latter states that a unit "suffers a single wound for each point they failed by, no armor saves allowed."

I'd like to note that the same wording applies to the Tervigon's "Brood Progenitor" rule. The same wording is also used in the wording for the Deffrolla, and possibly a number of other non-shooting attacks in the game.


In other words, a battlewagon with a deffrolla attempts to run over a tervigon in range of a venomthrope. The tervigon takes 6 S10 hits, but gets cover saves from the venomthrope. It dies, and the termagant broods in range of it may take cover saves from the psychic backlash of their parent's death by being in woods. Alternatively, a unit may take cover saves from a vehicle's explosion while embarked on said vehicle. I'm not going to pull RAI on you, but it's looking rather silly.

I would specifically disallow cover from any attack unless it is a shooting weapon, Psychic Shooting Attack, or states specifically that it allows cover saves, because doing otherwise opens the door for potential abuses. Plus, it's not like being inside a vehicle won't completely protect you from the entire rest of the Tyranid army, anyway.


Secondly, I have to point out that "termagaunts" do not exist. The term is "termagant" which also refers to the god that was believed to be worshiped by the Muslims centuries ago ...or a shrewish, old woman. Tyranids had a habit of being named after real things (tyrant, ripper, carnifex, ravener) before Robin Cruddace made up some of the newer, nonsensical names. Comically enough, termagant does not anger my spellchecker like termagaunt does.


If you disallow Psychic Scream (which hits "all" units within 2D6") from affecting units not visible to the user, you should include a clause for the same restriction on Jaws of the World Wolf.


Implant Attack states "regardless of the opponent's Toughness" very explicitly in the ruling. It's safe to say that in the rare case of a model being unable to wound under normal circumstances, Implant Attack will override this. It's a moot point, as all models with Implant Attack come with built-in rending claws or are monstrous.


The venomthrope's spore cloud says that the 5+ cover save may be taken against any shooting attacks, so RAW would dictate that you may take these saves against flamers. I recommend you append "except those against which no cover saves may be taken" to the end of this.


Please specify that models with wings only move as Jump Infantry and thus cannot Deep Strike.


Finally, you should probably include that the Avatar of Khaine is not affected by the pyrovore's flamespurt.

Inquisitor_Malice wrote:
The INAT team has no desire for person gain from our work. All of the professionals that I work with on this team are above such pettiness. The desire for personal gain would compromise the integrity of the document itself and for what? Personal glory in miniature games. We all have far better things to do with our time.

I'm aware of that. However, it is an established fact that biases do exist, even when those in the positions to make the decisions have seemingly no interest in personal gain.

Scientific studies have shown that;

NBA Referees, even African-American refs, call more fouls on African-American players than they do on Caucasian players. There's seemingly no reason for this, but statistics bear it out.
NBA referees also have favourites. Some players get away with things that others do not. Some players get the benefit of the doubt, others do not. This was reported on 60 minutes earlier this year.
Soccer referees call more fouls on taller players. This was published in the Wall Street Journal yesterday.

In none of these cases do the refs involved have any personal gain from their decisions, and yet their decisions are biased.

I'm not saying that anyone on the INAT team is making decisions based on personal gain. There does, however, appear to be a bias in favour of the tyranids. Other codexes have consistently been ruled against with a very conservative trend, but all these new rulings for nids take the most liberal interpretations possible, that favour the tyranid player. Just because none of you are playing nids in this year's Adepticon doesn't mean that many of you haven't played them in the past, or don't have soft-spot for them. Again, I don't think it has anything to do with personal gain. But biases can exist, even where personal gain isn't involved.

Redbeard wrote:

yakface wrote:
So there were some voting that thought we should just step up and make a rule change disallowing Spirit Leech from affecting embarked units...

It would have been more consistent with how questionable rules in other codexes have been handled. Look at the daemonic gift, "Aura of Decay". You have ruled (according to the + sign next to it in this version of the FAQ) that because it is a shooting power, it needs line of sight. Spirit Leech is also a shooting power (used in the shooting phase) - why does it not need line of sight? Or why does Aura of Decay? I mena, this isn't even consistent with rulings made from the same update to the FAQ? Why are nids getting such liberal interpretations compared to every other codex?

How many INAT members play nids? It seems like there is some sort of a bias here, and I doubt it's conscious, but the approach taken with the nid questions isn't consistent with the other codexes.

. . . Spirit Leech isn't a shooting attack, it's an aura.

Are you going to make a judgement on "overkill" wounds causing more Acid Blood tests? and about being able to Deep Strike with a winged Tyrant?

And on a more general rules note: If a player gets bonuses for reserve rolls, can that cause units to come on automaticallly (before 5th turn)? example: +2 to reserve rolls = auto deploy on turn 3...

yakface wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:
Right, I'm with you regarding balance/cover saves....I was mainly surprised you allowed something to effect units inside vehicles.

The ruling regarding the Tyrant also kind of surprised me. I figured it would be 'They form a retinue and he may never leave it'. I could see a Flyrant walking/running around with Tyrant Guard then jumping out to go eat units once it got close.

Well, with Spirit Leech, the problem is that all units within range are affected, period. And the rules for embarked units clearly say that you measure to the vehicle's hull for things affecting embarked units. Now, GW went and ruled in their FAQ regarding psychic powers that they can't affect embarked units, but this WAS a rule change, and as written only applies to psychic powers.

So when you get to Spirit Leech, you have a (non-psychic power) special rule that affects all units within its range...there is absolutely no basis in the rules, or even in the fluff why this ability shouldn't affect embarked units. The only strike against is really that up until this point there hasn't really been anything in the game that is able to cause wounds against embarked units. But that alone doesn't mean it isn't what GW intended to happen.

So there were some voting that thought we should just step up and make a rule change disallowing Spirit Leech from affecting embarked units, but again, at the end of the day the rules DO seem to allow it, so really if GW doesn't want something like this from occurring they need to make the rules change themselves like they did with psychic powers affecting embarked units.


As for the Tyrant Guard, again its a tough call because the rules are really sloppily written. Besides Space Wolf Fenrisian Wolves, GW has shown a clear trend since the start of its 5th edition style codexes (starting back in 4th edition with the Dark Angels) to not using the 'retinue' rules anymore. So how they chose to include the rule allowing a Tyrant to join Tyrant Guard is perplexing.

At the end of the day we made this ruling based upon how we think most people would generally interpret the rules and choose to play it naturally...of course we could be dead wrong, but we were kind of under a bit of a time crunch to get this update out in time for Adpepticon which didn't leave us the normal amount of time to see how people are playing with a new codex before making a ruling about it.

Again, hopefully GW will rule on this topic before Adepticon, but my rough guess would be that they will rule the same way we did on this one...although I've been surprised many times before, so who knows (or if they'll even rule on it)!

Hey Yak, cheers for the reply. Reasonable explanations albeit I still don't quite agree with the Tyrant/Tyrant Guard. Seems like the Tyrant gets the best of both worlds here, using retinue rules in HTH while affording the luxury of popping out if need be. Who knows though, it certainly is vague!

ChrisCP wrote:Yeah just the deffrolla thingy;
I don't understand why when the rules make it work (& there being fluff from the codex about it too “Steamrolling enemy infantry and light vehicles,”)) the choice made is to go against these things is based on what? Vehicles not being units or a ram not being a type of tank-shock? Which parts were taken into consideration when this was discussed?

Chris,

I'm not going to go into the whole explanation again as I've done so several times in the past already. Suffice to say, there is a large percentage of players who feel that ultimately even though Ramming is mentioned to be a special form of Tank Shocking, that ultimately the two are separate types of actions each with its own set of rules. While I don't personally agree with the argument, you can look through old YMDC forum threads to read all the reasons why people believe this is the correct interpretation of the rules.

One other thing to remember is that when the Deff Rolla rule was written, vehicles were still able to Tank Shock other vehicles that had a lower frontal armor value (4th edition).


But anyway, like I said, our initial ruling was in agreement with your opinion, but in an attempt to have the INAT FAQ match the UKGT house rules on such a big issue we deferred to their ruling especially as they said they had gotten word from the studio in this particular case.

Thankyou for the explanation behind the reasoning - as you said it's a big issue. The deferring approach take sounds quite sensible as it could cause even more arguments otherwise.

Cheers again.

airmang wrote:Are you going to make a judgement on "overkill" wounds causing more Acid Blood tests? and about being able to Deep Strike with a winged Tyrant?

And on a more general rules note: If a player gets bonuses for reserve rolls, can that cause units to come on automaticallly (before 5th turn)? example: +2 to reserve rolls = auto deploy on turn 3...

We will make a judgement on 'overkill' wounds, but not until we update the INAT again, which likely won't be until either GW releases their Tyranid FAQ or another codex. But you can safely assume that our ruling (and any judge at Adepticon) will rule that 'overkill' wounds do not count towards acid blood attacks...personally I think that's pretty much a safe blanket statement to make regarding any and all rules...if the wound isn't actually inflicted on a model (because you've killed them all) then those wounds don't count towards anything unless explicitly specified otherwise.

As for the Reserves question, again its something that definitely could be included in the next update and I'm 95% sure that we will rule with the RAW in this case in that there is no 'a 1 always fails' rule in place for Reserve rolls, so yes, you can have rolls that automatically succeed on a '1+' if you have modifiers on your Reserves rolls.

Finally, the ruling regarding the Deep Striking Hive Tyrant has already been made in the current INAT...check out the Jump Infantry section of the rulebook FAQ.


And thanks for the questions!

Broken Loose wrote:
Secondly, I have to point out that "termagaunts" do not exist. The term is "termagant" which also refers to the god that was believed to be worshiped by the Muslims centuries ago ...or a shrewish, old woman. Tyranids had a habit of being named after real things (tyrant, ripper, carnifex, ravener) before Robin Cruddace made up some of the newer, nonsensical names. Comically enough, termagant does not anger my spellchecker like termagaunt does.

Thanks for all the great feedback, I appreciate it!

I'll definitely get 'Termagant' fixed in the next update...the funny thing is when I run spell check on the INAT there are so many fake 40K words that pop-up I just get in the habit of skipping through all of them, not occurring to me that I might actually be misspelling one of their words!

If you disallow Psychic Scream (which hits "all" units within 2D6") from affecting units not visible to the user, you should include a clause for the same restriction on Jaws of the World Wolf.

I will make sure to bring it up for the next update, but GW did rule on this power in their own FAQ and while their ruling isn't 100% clear since the power doesn't affect UNITS like Psychic Scream but rather MODELS and their ruling does seem to indicate that LOS is only needed for the first model hit by the line (insinuating that all other models touched by it are affected regardless of LOS), it would be highly unlikely IMHO for us to overrule this.

Implant Attack states "regardless of the opponent's Toughness" very explicitly in the ruling. It's safe to say that in the rare case of a model being unable to wound under normal circumstances, Implant Attack will override this. It's a moot point, as all models with Implant Attack come with built-in rending claws or are monstrous.

While the rending ability most certainly does allow a model to wound an enemy it would not normally be able to wound due to Toughness, the only thing that Implant Attack does is to grant the wound the ability to inflict instant death...a wound must still be successfully caused for instant death to be inflicted...or in other words, it appears that we disagree with your logic on this one.

Also, some Monstrous Creatures such as the Hive Tyrant only have a S6, which means it is possible they could be fighting against a creature with a T10, in which case the ruling we made is completely valid (in our opinion).

The venomthrope's spore cloud says that the 5+ cover save may be taken against any shooting attacks, so RAW would dictate that you may take these saves against flamers. I recommend you append "except those against which no cover saves may be taken" to the end of this.

Fair enough, I'll definitely get this corrected in the next update and you can safely assume if you're attending Adepticon that every judge will rule that weapons which ignore cover saves would ignore the Venomthrope's cover save as well.

There are often so many caveats when attempting to write an answer to a 40K question that it can be ridiculously easy to overlook what your answer is actually missing...and I even try to spend time thinking about how my answers can be interpreted and still sometimes I let stuff accidentally slip through, so I appreciate someone letting me know so I can fix it.

Please specify that models with wings only move as Jump Infantry and thus cannot Deep Strike.

We have ruled on this matter in the current INAT in the 'Jump Infantry' section of the rulebook FAQ and it is safe to say that we completely disagree with your logic. We believe that the rules do indicate that arriving via Deep Strike is a specialized form of movement and that the rules allowing Jump Infantry to Deep Strike are even located in the 'MOVEMENT' section of the Jump Infantry rules.

As such, any model which move as Jump Infantry are therefore allowed to Deep Strike much as GW ruled that any models which move as Jetbikes (Necron Scarabs and Destroyers) are able to Turbo-boost.

Finally, you should probably include that the Avatar of Khaine is not affected by the pyrovore's flamespurt.

Thanks! I'll definitely get that added in the next update.

TYR.51B.03 and TYR.58B.02 state that cover saves may be taken against Terror From The Deep and Spirit Leech.

The wording on the former states that a unit "suffers a number of S6, AP2 equal to the number of models [under the marker]" and the latter states that a unit "suffers a single wound for each point they failed by, no armor saves allowed."

I'd like to note that the same wording applies to the Tervigon's "Brood Progenitor" rule. The same wording is also used in the wording for the Deffrolla, and possibly a number of other non-shooting attacks in the game.

In other words, a battlewagon with a deffrolla attempts to run over a tervigon in range of a venomthrope. The tervigon takes 6 S10 hits, but gets cover saves from the venomthrope. It dies, and the termagant broods in range of it may take cover saves from the psychic backlash of their parent's death by being in woods. Alternatively, a unit may take cover saves from a vehicle's explosion while embarked on said vehicle. I'm not going to pull RAI on you, but it's looking rather silly.

I would specifically disallow cover from any attack unless it is a shooting weapon, Psychic Shooting Attack, or states specifically that it allows cover saves, because doing otherwise opens the door for potential abuses. Plus, it's not like being inside a vehicle won't completely protect you from the entire rest of the Tyranid army, anyway.

Okay, sorry for the long response to this one, but I feel like it is needed to explain our position.

The first thing to remember is that the rules for 40K only have the steps for converting a hit into a wound, a wound into a save and unsaved wounds into casualties in the normal steps for the shooting phase and partial rules in the Assault phase section (in that they refer back to the shooting phase rules in some places).

That means, by the pure RAW anytime a hit or wound is inflicted on a model by a special rule outside of these two normal processes, the rules do not tell us how to resolve it AT ALL.

Now, being smart people gamers tend to figure out that based on how GW has laid out the rulebook we are simply expected to understand that we default back to the 'core' rules for these processes (i.e. those laid out in the 'shooting phase' section) and so when a model takes a hit, it means we roll to wound based on the Strength of the hit and then we take an armor/invulnerable save (unless specified otherwise), and if the model doesn't save it loses a wound from its profile and it this takes it to 0 wounds, it is removed from play as a casualty.

But it is important to always remember that these are very common CONVENTIONS used by players in lieu of clear rules telling us how to resolve specialty hits or wounds (those caused outside of shooting or assaults).

So when we get to the areas of casualty removal and cover saves, how to play these types of specialty wounds starts to become really murky. If we're defaulting back to the main shooting rules for these processes, then are we always able to assign the wound to any model in the unit regardless of which model was hit? And when exactly can cover saves be taken? And if these questions have answers, where are those answers coming from since they aren't in the rules themselves?


Ultimately the problem is this: When it comes to these types of 'specialty attacks' GW has written its rules with context unfortunately in mind rather than consistency. In other words, they seem to expect players to read what context with which the rule takes place in and based on that, make a judgement on exactly which casualty rules to apply.

For example, while it might seem really easy to simply lay a ground rule that states 'any wounds caused outside of shooting attacks don't get cover saves', but the problem is there are attacks that occur outside of the shooting phase that are pretty clearly similar to a shooting attack that don't specify one way or another how to resolve them if you don't consider them a shooting attack. I'm talking about such things as Ork Big Bomms dropped by Deff Koptas, or the Swooping Hawk Grenade Pack.

If you don't play that these things are treated like shooting attacks, then all of a sudden you have a bunch of questions with no answers like: 'what armor value do they hit vehicles on?' and 'Can only the models hit by the blast be removed as casualties?', etc.


And then on the flip side you have things like the Tyranid Acid Blood and Toxic Miasma which state that no cover saves are allowed even though these attacks occur in the assault phase...so by comparison where does this leave the Mawloc's emergence attack blast...cover or no cover save?


And even worse for us writing the INAT is the fact that we aren't trying to write a FAQ to reinvent the wheel, in that we hope and try to find with rulings that already generally match how most people already play the game with the goal of making sure there are naturally as few rules arguments at the tournament as possible without even having to reference the FAQ.

And you can rest assured that there are a good chunk of players out there that expect cover saves to be taken against exploding vehicles, Mawloc emergence attacks, Swooping Hawk Grenade Packs, Ork Big Bomms, etc, etc, etc, unfortunately just as there are some who would expect not to get cover saves in these cases.

Our belief and hope is that currently the former outweigh the latter in which case we've made the right ruling.


But what this ultimately comes down to is the context from which the attack is generated. Players expect to take cover saves against a Swooping Hawk attack because the context of the attack is that it is a grenade attack, which only makes 'sense' to get a cover save against.

Whereas with the Tervigon, these wounds are inflicted psychically by a friendly creature as a penalty for it dying, so I think you'll find that naturally people would not expect to get cover saves against these wounds.


But unfortunately because GW has failed to create a base-standard for how non-shooting, non-assault hits/wounds are resolved, and worse they are incredibly inconsistent with when they clarify if a unit does or does not get a cove save against such attacks, we are left as players and the INAT council, making individual judgement calls against each specific rule.


Which is likely what we will continue to do unless GW comes out with something major as a guideline in one of their FAQs.

So if cover saves against Tervigon wounds become a legitimate question that people start really asking about then we'll rule on it in the INAT and likely rule against allowing cover saves simply because it is highly unlikely that a majority of players would expect to get cover saves in that situation.


Whew, that was long! Hopefully that clarified our position a bit on the matter even if it isn't the answer you were particularly looking for.

Thanks again for all your feedback!

yakface wrote:

airmang wrote:Are you going to make a judgement on "overkill" wounds causing more Acid Blood tests? and about being able to Deep Strike with a winged Tyrant?

And on a more general rules note: If a player gets bonuses for reserve rolls, can that cause units to come on automaticallly (before 5th turn)? example: +2 to reserve rolls = auto deploy on turn 3...

We will make a judgement on 'overkill' wounds, but not until we update the INAT again, which likely won't be until either GW releases their Tyranid FAQ or another codex. But you can safely assume that our ruling (and any judge at Adepticon) will rule that 'overkill' wounds do not count towards acid blood attacks...personally I think that's pretty much a safe blanket statement to make regarding any and all rules...if the wound isn't actually inflicted on a model (because you've killed them all) then those wounds don't count towards anything unless explicitly specified otherwise.

As for the Reserves question, again its something that definitely could be included in the next update and I'm 95% sure that we will rule with the RAW in this case in that there is no 'a 1 always fails' rule in place for Reserve rolls, so yes, you can have rolls that automatically succeed on a '1+' if you have modifiers on your Reserves rolls.

Finally, the ruling regarding the Deep Striking Hive Tyrant has already been made in the current INAT...check out the Jump Infantry section of the rulebook FAQ.


And thanks for the questions!

Hey, thanks for accepting my input. I appreciate the care being taken.


The wording for Acid Blood is identical to the wording for Feel No Pain. Thematically, this insinuates that you keep hacking the body apart and getting hit by the blood, whether it is alive or not. Are you going to introduce a similar overkill limit on Feel No Pain? How will that be handled? This is also should be a good time to point out that you can FNP a wound that has dealt Acid Blood damage to the opponent already according to the rules.


(Refer to page 26 for a description on the difference between a model "suffering" a wound and a model losing a wound from its profile. If there was no distinction, Feel No Pain wouldn't work in a mechanical sense.)


Also, re: cover saves-- The Swooping Hawk Grenade Pack has something in common with the Terror From The Deep and the Brood Progenitor which are not in common with Spirit Leech, that is, AP values (as opposed to denial of saves). A fair resolution would allow cover saves from all of the former due to their similarity to shooting attacks in this respect.

I think it was a poor decision for spirit leech to wound enemy models embarked in vehicles. This has never ever been the case before so why should it now? I think if it could then GW would have told us. This is one people are going to be complaining about a lot.

G

Redbeard wrote:
I'm very disappointed in this latest set of "clarifications". In the past, the INT has been very conservative with regard to the interpretation of questionable rules. Disallowing a lash sorcerer joined to a unit from moving the target prior to a flamer in that unit from working, disallowing deff rollas from affecting vehicles, and generally erring on the side of caution.

Every questionable ruling on the tyranids is the liberal interpretation, in favour of the tyranid army. How you can claim that it's balanced to allow a hive tyrant to claim a cover save when he and a guard stand behind a couple of gaunts, but it's unbalanced to let a deff rolla hit a vehicle is beyond me.

Yeah, I have to agree with this. It seems that they completely fell off the wagon with this one. This is one set of interrpretations on FAQ's I wouldnt use. Especially on the spirit leech one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yakface wrote:
Well, with Spirit Leech, the problem is that all units within range are affected, period. And the rules for embarked units clearly say that you measure to the vehicle's hull for things affecting embarked units. Now, GW went and ruled in their FAQ regarding psychic powers that they can't affect embarked units, but this WAS a rule change, and as written only applies to psychic powers.

So when you get to Spirit Leech, you have a (non-psychic power) special rule that affects all units within its range...there is absolutely no basis in the rules, or even in the fluff why this ability shouldn't affect embarked units. The only strike against is really that up until this point there hasn't really been anything in the game that is able to cause wounds against embarked units. But that alone doesn't mean it isn't what GW intended to happen.

So there were some voting that thought we should just step up and make a rule change disallowing Spirit Leech from affecting embarked units, but again, at the end of the day the rules DO seem to allow it, so really if GW doesn't want something like this from occurring they need to make the rules change themselves like they did with psychic powers affecting embarked units.

There is nothing in the rules that allow shooting attacks to effect emback units. You're effectively making up a new rule and new way of dealing with shooting attacks.

carmachu wrote:

Redbeard wrote:
I'm very disappointed in this latest set of "clarifications". In the past, the INT has been very conservative with regard to the interpretation of questionable rules. Disallowing a lash sorcerer joined to a unit from moving the target prior to a flamer in that unit from working, disallowing deff rollas from affecting vehicles, and generally erring on the side of caution.

Every questionable ruling on the tyranids is the liberal interpretation, in favour of the tyranid army. How you can claim that it's balanced to allow a hive tyrant to claim a cover save when he and a guard stand behind a couple of gaunts, but it's unbalanced to let a deff rolla hit a vehicle is beyond me.

Yeah, I have to agree with this. It seems that they completely fell off the wagon with this one. This is one set of interrpretations on FAQ's I wouldnt use. Especially on the spirit leech one.

It's kinda funny - simultaneously, many Tyranid players are bitching about the horrible rulings that prevent reserves bonuses from stacking/applying, and various other fun topics. If no one's happy, I think that means they did their job?

(The Hive Tyrant/Guard thing is an old issue, dating from the preceding codex. RAW is reasonably clear on that one - units can claim cover saves when 50%+ of the models in the unit have cover. The older versions of the INAT FAQ had the same ruling.)

carmachu wrote:There is nothing in the rules that allow shooting attacks to effect emback units. You're effectively making up a new rule and new way of dealing with shooting attacks.

Except it's not a shooting attack. It doesn't even follow the majority of the shooting attack rules.

HIWPI is a lot more popular now than RAW, which is funny because you would think RAW should curb abuse. Anyways I see that Hive Commander does not stack for reserves.

G


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Okay I have read it and it's not bad at all. I do think Hive Guard show ignore night fight rules... They are blind as a bat Jon.

G

carmachu wrote:
There is nothing in the rules that allow shooting attacks to effect emback units. You're effectively making up a new rule and new way of dealing with shooting attacks.

Again:

1) Spirit Leech is not a shooting attack. It is a special rule that automatically occurs at the start of the shooting phase.

2) Page 66 of the rulebook says: "If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle's hull." Which seems to me to pretty clear detail that when something could potentially affect an embarked unit, you simply measure to the vehicle's hull to see if the unit is in range.


So from my reading, there is nothing in the rules preventing Spirit Leech from affecting embarked models. It is not a psychic power (which GW has disallowed from being used on embarked models) and it is not a shooting attack (which we have disallowed), so if we were to disallow Spirit Leech to not affect embarked models I do think we would most certainly be changing what the rules seem to indicate.

Inquisitor_Malice wrote:I can say this -

1) I am on the INAT team.
2) I do not actively play nids. I have some genestealers and the like, but have no interest in playing nids.
3) I am more than comfortable with all the rulings that were made with the INAT.

Alex - if we operated with the degree of transparency that people such as yourself desire, we would grind ourselves into the ground. I can say that the INAT staff is stretched to our limits. Not only do we diligently work to provide a quality document that the community can use if they choose, but also put on one of the highest quality shows (AdeptiCon) that the world has seen. This all along with balancing our personal and professional lives without any true benefit beyond the knowledge that we are hopefully helping community members remove potential arguments during game play and increase the chances of having a fun time.

The INAT team has no desire for person gain from our work. All of the professionals that I work with on this team are above such pettiness. The desire for personal gain would compromise the integrity of the document itself and for what? Personal glory in miniature games. We all have far better things to do with our time.

QFT in terms of applying it to myself and my feelings as well. Though my Nid collection is even more lacking then his.

It seems the spirit leech ruling opens a huge can of worms. Can Najal's Storm effects now hit embarked units? What about the Vibro Cannon? Those are just two that come to mind.

I understand why you guys made the choice, but it seems that it will cause more problems than it fixes.