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 (v3.3) of the Independent National Warhammer 40,000 Tournament FAQ (INAT FAQ), produced primarily for Adepticon 2010.

We desperately tried to hold out on doing a last ditch update until after GW released their Tyranid FAQ...but Adepticon is getting dangerously close and with GW's Deff Rolla ruling we knew that a few rulings needed to get published prior to Adepticon, so we've gone ahead done this mini-release of the INAT FAQ. Of course, knowing our luck GW will release their Tyranid FAQ tomorrow.

So what's changed? Except for rulings that were changed/added due to GW's Ork Deff Rolla FAQ answer, there are no other reversed or added rulings in this update. All that has been changed is the removal of a couple incorrect Tyranid questions/answers, a few general typo fixes and four new rulings in the Ork section that are all in regards to GW's Deff Rolla ruling...and that's it!

As always, any questions/rulings that have been altered from the 3.2 version have been denoted as such with a 'plus sign' ( + ) before the question # and have their 'answer text' colored red (just as with the 3.2 version) to make it easy for you to spot what has been changed (just jump to the Ork section this time around).

Also attached to the post below is the INAT Appendix v1.0. This covers all the Imperial Armor/Apocalypse unit questions and has not been changed since it was originally released (hence why it is still v1.0)


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!

Thank you Yakface for letting us use it. It is greatly appreciated the time and work you guys put into it.

Cheers!

Comments deleted by Moderator Frazz.

What he meant to say was "please don't suspend me. Moderator Frazz is bestest Moderator, really."

Captain Obvious troll is obvious.

Someone please bar CaptainObvious' IP from this site. K thanks!!
I don't pay good money to be exposed to this level of twattery.

Thank you folks for putting this FAQ out there. Thank you Yak for running this site. GW also said thank you for the contribution the INAT FAQ made to the GW FAQs.

Great stuff.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Captain Obvious troll is obvious.

Someone please bar CaptainObvious' IP from this site. K thanks!!
I don't pay good money to be exposed to this level of twattery.

Then don't read the Inat faq and you will be fine.

Thanks Yak
I think we will use these over here on this side of the pond as well

Thanks again for all the hard work on the INAT FAQ. It really helps around the gaming table.

If you get a chance might want to add an FAQ for Tyranid - acid blood. I have seen 3 ways to read this rule. Can see this could be an issue at tournaments.

-) For every wound inflicted the unit takes a SINGLE initiative test.
-) For every wound inflicted the unit takes an initiative test. (possible to kill multiple models in the unit)
and the stupid one
-) For every wound inflicted (so over kill wounds are considered) the unit takes an initiative test.

Also I would like to respectively disagree with ruling TYR.35B.01 as the Tyranid codex pg 35, Shieldwall enumerates the action of joining but does not enumerate the action of leaving.

Thanks Again for the excellent document.

CaptainObvious wrote:Wow there is some utter trash in here.

Doom of malanti effecting units in vehicles? Stupid
Goblit of spite effecting enemies models? Stupid

Basicly you should have put a caption on the last page of this that said if you arent bringing tyranids dont bother coming because we only want them to win......Didnt you see we made they rules in the inat faq as such?

Do you guys actually play test these rules changes you do? Or do you just go "Ok, yea lets do that, i think that would be cool" Actually sit down and play test a doom of malanti against a imperal guard tank line with troops in the tanks. Clearly youll notice that no play testing was done at all.

This commentary illustrates how frustrating trying to please everyone can be. You seem to be angry at the Goblet of Spite because you feel that we've ruled against the rules as written, which certainly can be understandable. But then you're also angry at us for ruling that the Doom of Malan'tai's ability can affect embarked units even though that is what the rules seem to dictate?

Now, I'm sure from your point of view you believe that the rules indicate that the Doom's Spirit Leech can't affect embarked units, but that isn't what the rules indicate to us, and to many, many other players, and that's the point.

If we rule one way you think its 'stupid', if we rule the other way somebody else thinks its 'stupid'. At the end of the day is not better to know what ruling you will be getting from a tournament judge should the question arise in your games, even if you disagree with that answer? At least that way you can factor it into your game plan ahead of time.

If your saying that The Goblit of spite effects Friendly and enemy models than any piece of gear that doesnt speficly state friend or foe, will effect both friend or foe. Ill remember this when playing tournaments that use this toilet paper rules set you call a FAQ. So following the lore and fluff.....When wyches charge into combat with the goblit they basicly stop after theya ll sip it.....and pass it to their enemies and say "Here drink this, we both should be on the same page, no point in paying points for an advantage that your army gets." Way to make a piece fo wargear worthless. Why in gods name would anyone take a goblit of spite when most of the time it will be with wyches who 1/2 your WS and make most people hit on 4+? God your a idiot.

If you read the description for Goblet of Spite, it is a piece of wargear that literally drives everyone around into a frothing madman...friend and foe alike. Now I understand that fluff does not equal rules, but this particular piece of wargear has been in the codex for several editions now and every Dark Eldar player I've ever encountered plays it directly as it is written in the codex...that the item affects anyone in contact with the bearer or his unit, and that means friend or foe. I know this goes against the GW FAQ ruling, but this is a ruling made more on the way we've seen people play the item in general then the strict RAW.

Yuckface please tell me your going to be at Adepticon, id love to actually meet you. Im sure you will be the fat, scraggly beared guy off in the corner wishing he was at home playing wow with his guild and raiding some super dungeon all wist being in the basement of his chain smoking mothers house

I will be at Adepticon and would love to hear any and all comments you'd like to express to me about the INAT. I'll be up at the scoring/judges table on Friday for the Gladiator, playing as part of 'Dakka Detachment #1' in the 40K team tournament on Saturday and I'll be running the Space Hulk tournament on Sunday.

But I'm not particularly fat, have never worn a beard, smoked or played world of warcraft before...and they don't have basements in California. But besides that, I'm sure you're dead on!

What? No basements in California? Why is that?

Oh, and you ask if we 'playtest' our rulings at all. I did want to address that a bit.


First off, the idea of 'playtesting' our rulings misses the whole point...contrary to what some may want to believe we are not making our rulings as a means to change the perceived 'power levels' of certain armies. The fact is, it is a group of people who make up the INAT council, and amongst us we have a very wide range of different armies played. While bias is always part of any decision a human being makes, the idea that we would all somehow 'come together' to deliberately try to adjust the 'power level' of an army is simply ludicrous and goes against all common sense. If we're 'choosing' to 'boost' the power level of Tyranids then obviously when I'm not playing with Tyranids at Adepticon (which I'm not) then I'm screwing myself, so why would I want to do that?

The *reality* is that we have a set of unclear rules that are interpreted several different ways by EVERYONE who plays the game. We are simply choosing to go with one reasonable conclusion derived from reading the same rules everyone else is. So regardless of whether or not we were to playtest our rulings, it shouldn't change what those rulings are if we think that is the right ruling.

In the case of Spirit Leech I think you'll find that in action, the ruling is far less potent then you seem to believe it is...taking cover saves on wounds inflicted on embarked units makes its effect perfectly reasonable IMHO.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Davor wrote:What? No basements in California? Why is that?

Until now, basements in the United States have largely been a Midwestern or Eastern concept, and for good reason. Where it freezes in the winter, the land contracts and expands and will literally heave the foundation of a house up. Builders in those areas have to take the foundation well below the 4-foot frost line level to anchor it. Basements there are cheap to construct, so builders dig just a few feet deeper and create a full basement.

On the other hand, California has shied away from basements for good reasons--earthquakes, clay soil and a high water table. These problems require special building techniques and lots of money. And, historically, California has had plenty of land for its rambling homes.


http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/04.19.01/mpnews3-0116.html

There's a slight error in the Entry for Eldard Ultran, it states he can choose to use his Witchblade and Shuriken pistol to gain +1 attack, which implies he can also choose to use the Staff of Ulthammer and Shuriken pistol to claim +1 attack. He can obviously do neither as he has 2 special close combat weapons and as such my never gain an extra attack from having two weapons. BRB pg 42.

Aramoro

Aramoro wrote:There's a slight error in the Entry for Eldard Ultran, it states he can choose to use his Witchblade and Shuriken pistol to gain +1 attack, which implies he can also choose to use the Staff of Ulthammer and Shuriken pistol to claim +1 attack. He can obviously do neither as he has 2 special close combat weapons and as such my never gain an extra attack from having two weapons. BRB pg 42.

Aramoro

Actually that is exactly what it means! Please read our ruling in the rulebook section: RB.42P.01. Models that have more than one special weapon along with one (or more) regular close combat weapons may choose which two weapons to use, and if they choose to use a special and a regular weapon then they can potentially get the +1A bonus for having two single-handed weapons.

The rule you're referencing on page 42 of the rulebook can be interpreted in one of two ways as it refers to weapons the model is wielding.

1) You can assume that 'wielding' is referring to the combination of weapons the model is carrying, in which case the RAW have no bearing on Eldrad as he is NOT carrying two special weapons, he is actually carrying two special weapons AND one regular weapon...a classification not covered by page 42 of the rules.

2) You can assume that 'wielding' is referring to actually using the weapons in combat, in which case those rules are applied based on which weapons the model actually chooses to use in that round of combat. Yes, if a model uses two special weapons then he can not get the +1A in combat, but if he happens to have a regular weapon as well, then he can choose to wield that weapon along with one of his special weapons and potentially get the +1 Attack bonus.


We obviously went with the 2nd interpretation as it covers all possibilities in the game, which the first interpretation does not.

It's a straight conditional thing in that section of the rules. Does he have two special weapons? Yes, he gets no bonus attacks. He could have 16 special weapons and he still meets the condition of having 2 special weapons. It doesn't say only 2 special weapons. You never wield anything, nor have the chance to 'use' things except for having 2 special weapons, the 2 special weapon section is the only place where you get to choose which weapon you will use. For example if you have a normal weapon and a Powerfist you will uncontrolably hit people with your Powerfist. By your interpretation he has 2 special and 1 normal weapon which isn't covered in the rules so he cannot attack at all, or if you can he cannot use the effects of any of his special weapons.

Out of interest why would you ever choose to use the Witchblade and Shuriken pistol to claim +1 attack when you can use the Staff of Ulthammer and Pistol? It's a Witchblade which ignores saves.

Aramoro

Aramoro wrote:It's a straight conditional thing in that section of the rules. Does he have two special weapons? Yes, he gets no bonus attacks. He could have 16 special weapons and he still meets the condition of having 2 special weapons. It doesn't say only 2 special weapons. You never wield anything, nor have the chance to 'use' things except for having 2 special weapons, the 2 special weapon section is the only place where you get to choose which weapon you will use. For example if you have a normal weapon and a Powerfist you will uncontrolably hit people with your Powerfist.

The rules say nothing about conditionality in that section. Eldrad is as much wielding 'a normal and a special weapon' as he is 'two special weapons'.

Again, read the whole section. It is entitled 'Fighting with two Single-handed weapons'. Those are the different combinations that a model may FIGHT with.

I am not saying that your interpretation isn't valid. It is. However there is another interpretation of that section and we feel it better covers the myriad of game situations, so that is the interpretation we've gone with.

By your interpretation he has 2 special and 1 normal weapon which isn't covered in the rules so he cannot attack at all, or if you can he cannot use the effects of any of his special weapons.

Out of interest why would you ever choose to use the Witchblade and Shuriken pistol to claim +1 attack when you can use the Staff of Ulthammer and Pistol? It's a Witchblade which ignores saves.

Aramoro

Again, we aren't using that interpretation. We're going with the idea that the different combinations listed are the combinations that the model can CHOOSE to utilize. So a model with 2 different special weapons and 1 regular weapon could choose to either:

A) Fight with the 2 special weapons, in which case he would follow the rules for fighting with 'two different special weapons' have to pick the effects of one or the other and not get a +1 Attack bonus.

B) Fight with 1 special weapon and one regular weapon, in which case he would follow the rules for fighting with 'a normal and a special weapon' (he gets the effects of the special weapon along with the +1A bonus unless fighting with a special weapon that doesn't allow the bonus, etc).


And the question in the FAQ is just an example of what could happen, we're not saying someone should use the witchblade instead of the staff.

Fair enough I just feel it undermines the validity of the INAT FAQ when you have rules changes and clarifications which are rules changes in there.

The other one that stands out is Stubborn vs Psyhker Battle Squads. It says that they do not cause a 'modifier', thus Stubborn does nothing. Losing combat doesn't create a modifier. It adds a penalty to leadership so stubborn does nothing. What actually causes a negative leadership modifier?

Aramoro

Aramoro wrote:Fair enough I just feel it undermines the validity of the INAT FAQ when you have rules changes and clarifications which are rules changes in there.

I understand your point of view, but if you read the afterword of the document you will see how we define 'RAW' vs. 'clarification' vs. 'rules change'.

There is no possible way we could categorize our rulings that every person could agree on because not everyone agrees on what the rules as written even say in any given situation.

In general, I fully stand by the fact that rulings marked as a 'clarification' have more than one common interpretation of the rules as written or have no clearly followable rules as written and therefore any ruling on that matter is properly identified in the INAT FAQ as a clarification by the definition we give.

The other one that stands out is Stubborn vs Psyhker Battle Squads. It says that they do not cause a 'modifier', thus Stubborn does nothing. Losing combat doesn't create a modifier. It adds a penalty to leadership so stubborn does nothing. What actually causes a negative leadership modifier?

The morale rules do specify that the unit suffers a negative 'Ld modifier' when it loses combat (pg 44).

No matter what in a game with this many grey spots you are never going to appease everyone. If you make even 60% of the people happy, or at least able to game with each other without getting into a ridiculous argument, then you have in fact doen a great service to everyone who would like to enjoy the game.

For anyone who has ever run a tournament, any FAQ as definitive as this one is a great tool. You simply let everyone who comes to the tournament know that the INAT FAQ is in use and they can choose to play under those rules or not play at all. Even if you don't agree with the rules you have to enjoy at least knowing what they are, as opposed to a neboulous vagery that we useually have.

In Short, thanks.

Yak, I don't even know why you replied to Captain Obvious. Valid criticisms of the INAT are fine and I appreciate it when you respond to them but people like Captain Obvious (with his massive 4 post count) are clearly parroting your more vocal critics and showing just how small-minded and immature they are. People acting that rude should be ignored by you and made fun of by the rest of us until they grow up and realize what a meaningful contribution looks like.

Thanks again for the FAQ. I'm not happy with the DoM ruling, but honestly I try not to get too upset over a game of toy soldiers.

I think I have a "valid" criticism of the INAT.
For the ruling on Astropaths and OOTF, RAW says that "whilst the Astropath/OOTF is alive, the rule is in effect" yadda yadda. Imho, if there's something in reserves, they're alive.

Not asking to change the current ruling (Although that would be nice), but what is the INAT reasoning for having the rule not affect the game while they aren't on the board?

Gavo wrote:I think I have a "valid" criticism of the INAT.
For the ruling on Astropaths and OOTF, RAW says that "whilst the Astropath/OOTF is alive, the rule is in effect" yadda yadda. Imho, if there's something in reserves, they're alive.

Not asking to change the current ruling (Although that would be nice), but what is the INAT reasoning for having the rule not affect the game while they aren't on the board?

This is certainly a valid point and as with many rulings in the FAQ the people voting on it are often split on which way to rule and this is certainly one of those cases.

The base point is that there needs to be some sort of ruling to prevent things that are in Reserve from affecting the game otherwise some pretty silly things start happening with abilities that don't have a range or require line of sight (like WH/DH psychic hoods being used by models in Reserve, for example).

So the INAT FAQ has had a ruling for a while now saying essentially that if a model is in Reserve it doesn't affect the game (nor is it affected by the game) except where the rules specifically say so, such as with the (very similar) Eldar Autarch ability that specifically says that it may be used even when the model isn't in play (i.e. in Reserves).

The question then is, is the wording you've quoted 'whilst...alive' *specific* enough to clearly show that the ability affects the game while the model is out of play (in Reserves)?

While some members of the council believe it is, the majority did not and so the ruling stands as is.


Basically until GW shows through one of their official FAQs that this kind of language is supposed to represent that the ability can be used while in Reserve we're going to go with the idea that the rule needs to actually be more specific, such as in the case of the Eldar Autarch.

Ok, thanks for the clarification, yak.

The first ork q is such a total rules change and not a clarification, nothing in the fleet rule states it has to be on the unit when it has run, it merely allows a unit that has run in the shooting phase to assault, no restriction on a timeline. This is nothing more than them trying to be "fair and balanced" becuase they think they know best ...

mon-keigh slayer wrote:The first ork q is such a total rules change and not a clarification, nothing in the fleet rule states it has to be on the unit when it has run, it merely allows a unit that has run in the shooting phase to assault, no restriction on a timeline. This is nothing more than them trying to be "fair and balanced" becuase they think they know best ...

Take the Waaagh rule and show it to a new player who's never played 4th edition and ask them how the rule works. You can give them all the time in the world to read the pertinent rulebook sections that relate to the rule.

At the end of the day when they've studied the rulebook, guess what? They'll have no idea how the rule works because it doesn't make any sense as written.

What is 'Waaagh' movement and what dice is being rolled that causes a wound on a roll of a '1'? There is no explanation as written as it doesn't make any sense in this edition of the game.


So any ruling made on this subject is a clarification by our definition of what a clarification is...it can't be a rules change because there is no clear rules as written.

I think the ruling on the Doom affecting units in transports is extremely misguided. The guiding principle in tabletop games is not "I can do it because the rulebook doesn't say I can't", but rather, "If the rulebook doesn't say I can, I can't do it." Nothing else in the game can affect units in transports, and the Doom of Malantai's language gives no special permission for it to do so. Therefore, the only reasonable conclusion is that it cannot. The fact that you guys have ruled that a 55 point model can have such a significant impact on a game, and do something nothing else in the game can is just mind-boggling.

Not that it matters, though, anyone that drops the Doom and has any success with it will get tanked on their soft scores, so it will all even out.

Terminus wrote:I think the ruling on the Doom affecting units in transports is extremely misguided. The guiding principle in tabletop games is not "I can do it because the rulebook doesn't say I can't", but rather, "If the rulebook doesn't say I can, I can't do it." Nothing else in the game can affect units in transports, and the Doom of Malantai's language gives no special permission for it to do so. Therefore, the only reasonable conclusion is that it cannot. The fact that you guys have ruled that a 55 point model can have such a significant impact on a game, and do something nothing else in the game can is just mind-boggling.

Not that it matters, though, anyone that drops the Doom and has any success with it will get tanked on their soft scores, so it will all even out.

While I expressed my surprise over the ruling in an earlier thread, my disagreement was more based on previous ruling than in game effect. They allow cover saves from inside the vehicle, which reduces the Dooms ability by a bit.

/Captain Obvious reminds me of someone

That's an even more bizarre way to handle it. So not only are they allowing something entirely unprecedented, they are introducing more rules that now directly contradict RAW to balance it? Brilliant.

As for the Cpt., hopefully you don't mean me. I may be an occasional arsehole, but that guy is an outright douche.

Terminus wrote:
As for the Cpt., hopefully you don't mean me. I may be an occasional arsehole, but that guy is an outright douche.

Hey Terminus, I certainly didn't aim that comment at you. It was intended for Captain Obvious...as he reminded me of a previous Dakka poster...that is no longer around.

Terminus wrote:I think the ruling on the Doom affecting units in transports is extremely misguided. The guiding principle in tabletop games is not "I can do it because the rulebook doesn't say I can't", but rather, "If the rulebook doesn't say I can, I can't do it." Nothing else in the game can affect units in transports, and the Doom of Malantai's language gives no special permission for it to do so. Therefore, the only reasonable conclusion is that it cannot. The fact that you guys have ruled that a 55 point model can have such a significant impact on a game, and do something nothing else in the game can is just mind-boggling.

Not that it matters, though, anyone that drops the Doom and has any success with it will get tanked on their soft scores, so it will all even out.

There are quite a few things that can affect embarked units in the game, but Spirit Leech is the first one that can actually cause wounds to such units. But just because there hasn't been an ability before that has done something similar doesn't mean it shouldn't function as written.

And this most certainly isn't a case of "since the rulebook doesn't say I can't, so I can".


1) Spirit Leech affects all enemy units within a certain range.
2) The RULES tell us for ranges involving embarked units we measure to the hull of the vehicle.
3) Therefore, if the hull of an enemy transport vehicle with an embarked unit is found to be within range of Spirit Leech then the embarked unit is affected.


There would have to be a rule specifically saying that embarked units are NOT affected for Spirit Leech not to affect them because Spirit Leech affects all units within range and the rules tell us how to measure range to an embarked unit. Yes, the RULES tell us that Spirit Leech affects enemy units.

Terminus wrote:That's an even more bizarre way to handle it. So not only are they allowing something entirely unprecedented, they are introducing more rules that now directly contradict RAW to balance it? Brilliant. .

Considering that there are absolutely zero rules in the rulebook telling us how to resolve hits/wounds caused outside of the normal process for shooting or assault there is no conceivable way that us ruling cover saves may be taken against wounds caused by Spirit Leech could possibly 'directly contradict RAW' because there are no rules as written in the situation of wounds caused by Spirit Leech.

AgeOfEgos wrote:

Terminus wrote:
As for the Cpt., hopefully you don't mean me. I may be an occasional arsehole, but that guy is an outright douche.

Hey Terminus, I certainly didn't aim that comment at you. It was intended for Captain Obvious...as he reminded me of a previous Dakka poster...that is no longer around.

The vitriol does indeed remind one of S. But it can't possibly be S., as S. doesn't read Dakka according to his blog.

Ever.

Despite the fact that several times it appears that he's directly responding to threads here.

NEVER.

(Go ahead and rant about this one, S., I promise we'll keep pretending you don't read it!)