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 (v4.0) of the Independent National Warhammer 40,000 Tournament FAQ (INAT FAQ).

This document represents the fourth year (hence version 4) that the FAQ will have been produced for Adepticon and any other event or organization that would like to use it.

We have a big announcement for this update, that being the fact that we've added a couple of new members to the 'ruling council' which votes on how the rulings are made in the document. We'd like to welcome: Jon 'JWolf' Wolf (Austin, TX) and Jay 'Jay_DaBoyz' Woodcock (Rochester, NY) to the council. JWolf is a contributing member of the Bell of Lost Souls website and organizer of BoLScon. Jay is an organizer of the 'Daboyz GT'. Their vast experience (both playing-in and running 40K tournaments), along with the unique perspective of each of their geographic locales really helps to make sure that the rulings in the INAT FAQ appropriately represent many different viewpoints.

In this new update, besides covering the new Blood Angels codex as well as adding a smattering of other questions across the document, we've also tried to take a really hard look at our rulings that seem to have caused some of the largest consternation amongst players. We always strive to make our rulings fit with how most people naturally choose to play the game and we also want rulings that are consistent and easy to understand across the entire document.

With each update we always try to double-check our existing rulings to see if we still feel that we made the right choice. With hindsight, if we think a ruling really needs to be changed then we absolutely do. Some of the 'big issues' that have been reversed in this update are:

We've gone with a more relaxed interpretation of when models in reserve can affect the game. If an ability specifies that it works while the model is 'alive', then this rule will function even when the model is in Reserve.

We've gone with the more liberal interpretation of what level of specificity is needed for a special rule to apply to an Independent Character joining a unit. If the special rule actually says in its rules text that it applies to a unit, then these special rules will apply to Independent Characters joining the unit.

Of course, there are some other smaller changes, but as always, any questions/rulings that have been altered from the previous version of the FAQ have been denoted as such with a 'plus sign' ( + ) before the question # and have their 'answer text' colored red to make it easy for you to spot what has been changed.

Also attached 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). We will be doing an update for the Appendix at some point this year to cover Imperial Armor Volume 8 (as well as to add new questions and correct some rulings, etc, as usual).


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!

An excellent document as usual, very glad to see common sense and playability employed on the deffrolla questions of 'does it count as a weapon' and 'does it count as hull'.

Sweet - you guys revisited the Shrike/Snikrot debate - this ruling makes much more sense, I think.

Here comes Snikrot + Ghaz.

Wow, Ulrik's Slayer's Oath seems a bit sick if you rule it that way. An entire unit rerolling to hit and wound when shooting at toughness 5?

just out of curiosity, is there anywhere to see why certain rules were interpreted the way they were?

I'm not taking anything away from this document, and the copious amount of work which has obviously been put into it, but there's a bunch of stuff in here that just seems silly to me. I'm probably in the minority here, but I think if I could understand the reasoning behind some of the rulings maybe I wouldn't be so critical of them.

As it stands, I'm glad a lot of this stuff is only used at certain tournaments - at least, that is, until GW steals it & makes it ''official.''

Oh well, like I said, a lot of effort is put into these documents, so I can appreciate that. And when I show up to a tourney using the INAT, I guess I won't have much of a choice, so there's no point in arguing

I'm still curious, though...

magodedisco wrote:Wow, Ulrik's Slayer's Oath seems a bit sick if you rule it that way. An entire unit rerolling to hit and wound when shooting at toughness 5?

It definitely is a nice rule when played that way. However, while the term 'allocate their attacks' is a term usually associated with close combat, the fact is there is nothing that specifically links that rule only to close combat, and as demonstrated by GW with their Epidemius ruling if they use the general term 'attacks' (instead of 'close combat attacks') then technically it should apply to both close combat and ranged attacks.

radical bob wrote:just out of curiosity, is there anywhere to see why certain rules were interpreted the way they were?

I'm not taking anything away from this document, and the copious amount of work which has obviously been put into it, but there's a bunch of stuff in here that just seems silly to me. I'm probably in the minority here, but I think if I could understand the reasoning behind some of the rulings maybe I wouldn't be so critical of them.

As it stands, I'm glad a lot of this stuff is only used at certain tournaments - at least, that is, until GW steals it & makes it ''official.''

Oh well, like I said, a lot of effort is put into these documents, so I can appreciate that. And when I show up to a tourney using the INAT, I guess I won't have much of a choice, so there's no point in arguing

I'm still curious, though...

I try to include a tid bit of why a ruling is made in the answer text of each question when it can be easily done without adding many words...beyond that we include the tags at the end of each ruling to tell you under what general guideline the ruling had been made. But the fact is, we really can't include an explanation for every ruling without making the document likely double its current length...and clocking in at a crazy 118 pages right now makes any increase in length completely out of the question.

And to be honest with you, it shouldn't be too difficult to get a general idea of why every ruling is made the way it is. None of them are completely out of left field, they all represent either the way most people already play the game (even if you happen to fall on the outside of that heading in some particular questions) or they represent one of several likely interpretations of unclear situations.


Of course, if you have any specific questions about particular rulings you can post them here in this thread and I will be more than happy to try to explain the reasoning behind them.

yakface:
thanks for that. I imagine that, were I to play more frequently from coast to coast [and even in Great Britain], a lot more of the INAT rulings would be less ''strange,'' so to speak. I think everyone becomes accustomed to the ''house rule'' nature of playing at the FLGS, so upon examination of a broader spectrum patterns would start to emerge which explain a lot...

As for specifics, to be honest I'm happy just keeping them to YMDC, regardless of how muddled it can sometimes get

Again, I may not agree with all the INAT rulings, but I certainly appreciate that it exists in this comprehensive form. It's surely better than the alternative of every TO making a judgment mid-game that varies from tourney to tourney, so when you show up to play you have no idea how things are going to work!

I disagree with allied characters benefitting from chalice of blood rules. And I'm a BA player.

Great work again, thanks.

I don't understand what is meant by the "Initiative step", used in SM.90D.01 and BA.51G.01.

Valhallan42nd wrote:I disagree with allied characters benefitting from chalice of blood rules. And I'm a BA player.

The thing (some) people often forget is that Independent Characters are also units...so the question is, when a rule says that it benefits friendly units within X inches, does that mean it benefits the unit with the special rule itself? Again, this is a situation where sometimes rules like this are written to say 'including the unit [with the speical rule]', sometimes the rule is written to say 'not including the unit [with the special rule]' and sometimes (such as in this case) the rule says neither.


In the INAT we've gone ahead and picked one way, and that is to say we think that units that have a rule that affects friendly units within a certain range meet the following criteria:

1) They are a friendly unit (they are a unit and they aren't an enemy unit and therefore they are a friendly unit).

2) They are technically within the specified range (whether or not a unit can be within range of itself is again another grey area, but based on the fact that *some* of these special rules have to specify that the unit with the rule *doesn't* benefit from it seems to indicate that is possible for a unit to count as being within range of its own special rule).


As such, in the INAT you'll find that any rule that affects friendly units within a certain range will indeed affect the unit with said special rule, even if that unit is just a special character (unless of course the rule specifies that the source unit doesn't benefit from the rule).

Shrubs wrote:Great work again, thanks.

I don't understand what is meant by the "Initiative step", used in SM.90D.01 and BA.51G.01.

Sorry about that. When we say 'Initiative step' we're talking about when resolving a close combat, you work your way down through each Initiative value, making all attacks for models with that Initiative. Each Initiative value would be the 'Initiative step' we're talking about. So when the models are going to attack at each 'Initiative step' in the combat you'd check range at that point to see if the unit is still within range of the special rule.

I'll try to clear up that wording in the next update (thanks for the feedback).

While it might be possible to understand why some things are ruled a particular way, what is confusing is reversals without any explanation. it's still the same ruleset, so why were decisions reversed?
Snikrot and Weaken Resolve in particular?

yakface wrote:

Shrubs wrote:Great work again, thanks.

I don't understand what is meant by the "Initiative step", used in SM.90D.01 and BA.51G.01.

Sorry about that. When we say 'Initiative step' we're talking about when resolving a close combat, you work your way down through each Initiative value, making all attacks for models with that Initiative. Each Initiative value would be the 'Initiative step' we're talking about. So when the models are going to attack at each 'Initiative step' in the combat you'd check range at that point to see if the unit is still within range of the special rule.

I'll try to clear up that wording in the next update (thanks for the feedback).

Thanks, it's clear now. There's probably a reason why this is handled different from the Blood Chalice series (TYR.52C.01, BA.48C.01, BA.49D.01, BA.52C.01 and IG.60C.01) but imo it would be easier to handle all aura effects the same way.

Shrubs wrote:
Thanks, it's clear now. There's probably a reason why this is handled different from the Blood Chalice series (TYR.52C.01, BA.48C.01, BA.49D.01, BA.52C.01 and IG.60C.01) but imo it would be easier to handle all aura effects the same way.

The reason is, those other abilities deal with Furious Charge, which is essentially triggered by a unit assaulting. If a unit assaults with Furious Charge then it stands to reason that it would benefit from the special rule for that phase, even if its assault move takes it out of range of the model/unit that is providing them with that ability. That's why the Furious Charge ability range is checked at the start of the Assault phase.

With the Blood Chalice (and other abilities that grant an extra attack or extra Strength), since it doesn't specify when range is checked it makes sense to check right before the model which would benefit from the ability attacks.


So it isn't really a matter of being inconsistent between the two types of rules, but rather that because they affect units at different times during the assault phase then it makes sense to check range at those different times.

don_mondo wrote:While it might be possible to understand why some things are ruled a particular way, what is confusing is reversals without any explanation. it's still the same ruleset, so why were decisions reversed?
Snikrot and Weaken Resolve in particular?

I understand what you're saying completely, but we've always said from the very beginning that we take user feedback very seriously and every time that we do an update I try to look very carefully at our existing rulings to make sure that they are 'right' from the point of view of ruling the way most people play crossed with being consistent across the document and also relatively easy to understand.

Often (such as in the two cases you've pointed out) their really isn't any kind of 'clear' answer on these subjects, but rather multiple different ways that different people think it should be played. So while our rulings for those subjects seemed 'right' to us when we originally made them, given hindsight and user feedback we've come to reconsider those rulings and decided that it is better to reverse them rather than go down a path where we continue to make rulings in a similar vein that don't sit well with most gamers.


But I'll go into more detail on each of the two rulings that you brought up and why we reversed them:


1) Snikrot's ability applying to other ICs joining the unit. This is an example of a ruling that has a very broad application. It basically gets back to the roots of exactly when does a special rule that is granted to a unit apply to other ICs joining the unit.

The poll I ran here on Dakka as well as our general feeling about Snikrot's ability applying to other ICs at the time our original ruling was made was that *most* players didn't play that Snikrot's ability could apply to other ICs joining his unit, and this was a very large part of how we decided to rule (along with the fact that a very restrictive interpretation of the rules for Independent Character's gaining unit special rules seemed to back it up).

However, the problem with this ruling is that if you apply it across the board you end up with a situation where stuff like Chaplain's 'Rights of Battle' special rule also shouldn't apply to other ICs joining the Chaplains unit. Walking around Adepticon this year, the judges noticed that the VAST majority of players tend to play that *most* special rules that are specifically granted to a unit (such as with 'Rites of Battle', for example) *DO* apply to other ICs joining the unit.

Now, at Adepticon (and I'd wager with most tournaments that use the INAT FAQ) its absolutely the policy to let people play the game how they want to, and only enforce the rulings of the INAT when and if players ask for a judge's ruling. But at the end of the day, the goal of the INAT is to match how most people are already playing at a tournament on their own, and in this case we are definitely at odds with how most people play.

The other problem is that our 'general' ruling on ICs gaining special rules when joining a unit was very complex (although again, technically supported by a narrow interpretation of the rules). Saying that ICs gain the special rules when joining a unit *IF* that special rule is conferred to the unit via a piece of wargear or a psychic power means that the ruling in general is very difficult to interpret for situations not explicitly covered by the INAT. It meant that if a unit got 'Feel No Pain' via a psychic power (like Catalyst) then an IC joining the unit WOULD benefit from it, but if the same unit was to gain 'Feel No Pain' from a 'special rule' that a special character (for example) gave them, then this WOULDN'T apply to other ICs joining the unit.

This is just too confusing for anyone not really, really focused on understanding the INAT's ruling...which isn't something that we want. Our rulings should make 'sense' to most people reading them!


So with that in mind, we decided to reverse the overarching ruling regarding ICs gaining special rules when joining a unit and go with the more liberal interpretation: An IC joining a unit will gain any special rule that specifies that it applies to the unit. So if the unit simply *has* a special rule, then an IC joining the unit won't benefit from it (unless the special rule actually says it applies to ICs joining the unit), BUT if the rule actually says that it applies to the unit (as is the case with special rules that many characters have that are granted to units), then these would indeed apply to other ICs joining the unit.


Making this change brings the INAT's core ruling back in line with how we've seen most people play this issue in most cases. Of course, that still leaves us with Snikrot's ability, since in that case most people seem to be of the opposite opinion (that ICs joining his unit don't benefit from it). This is one of those cases where the 'majority' seems to play inconsistently. They allow ICs joining units to gain special rules that are conferred to the unit except in the case of Snikrot (and Shrike).

Obviously we could have simply made a 'rules change' in the case of Snikrot, but we really try to keep internal consistency within the INAT, and since we were reversing our main ruling on the matter we really wanted to try to keep a clear consistent set of rulings across the whole document on the matter.

Not to mention that at the time the original ruling was made, Snikrot arriving on your back edge with Ghaz attached to the unit seemed incredibly more powerful than anything other armies could do. But as codexes have continued to come out, that combo doesn't seem nearly as powerful anymore when compared to some of the things that Space Wolves or Blood Angels (for example) can do. And besides, GW's own ruling about ICs arriving with a unit from reserves (and the fact that they can't leave the unit the turn they arrive) really makes the Snikrot combo not nearly so devastating.



2) With Weaken Resolve vs. Stubborn, our original ruling was based on the fact that the rulebook defines a 'Ld modifier' in the morale section, and that Weaken Resolve never specifically says that it is a Ld modifier. Again, this was the 'basic' overarching ruling that we were applying to all situations.

The problem was, as time went on and we looked through more of the codices we found that this ruling was anchored on very shaky ground. Many of the negative Ld modifiers in the game that *everybody* would consider a Ld modifier didn't actually specify that they were 'Ld modifiers', even if it was heavily implied in many cases. This meant that if people were to bring up a question as to whether these other rules were considered Ld modifiers, our answer (in order to be consistent) would have had to have been that these things are *not* Ld modifiers (or we would have had to have called them 'rules changes' to consider them 'modifiers').

Based on this fact we really felt that it was important to change this core ruling now before the shaky foundation really started to affect more and more questions that could be posed.

And once that core ruling was reversed there is nothing to say that 'Weaken Resolve' isn't considered a Ld modifier. It modifies the Ld of the unit and therefore it qualifies under the more general interpretation of the rules.



Anyway, hopefully that clears some things up. I know it can seem frustrating to have a ruling 'magically' change, but IMHO it is even more frustrating to have (in hindsight) a 'bad' ruling in place that just never, ever gets changed simply because the people who make the FAQ don't want to admit that they made a call that needs to be reversed. That's one thing that I think most people find a bit frustrating about GW's FAQs (they almost never update 'bad' rulings) and that's definitely not something we ever want to be in the business of doing.

With that said, we don't change our rulings lightly. We put a lot of thought and arguments (and voting) into whether or not it is the right thing to change a ruling, knowing that the people who like the existing ruling are going to feel robbed. But with these particular rulings we absolutely felt that they needed to be changed now because the implications of those rulings were continuing to affect more and more questions as new codices were released and we were getting further and further away from how most people are playing the game by sticking to those original principles.

One thing that is nagging at me with the faq, I thought that cover saves were only granted from being shot at. If that's the case shouldn't the doom of malan'tai's leech life ability (neither shooting or psychic, just a special ability) not grant any cover saves ever?

Also in the space wolf faq there is a question on the 4th page that asks if the vengeful tornado grants cover saves to which the answer is "No – Vengeful Tornado is not a shooting attack
and therefore allows no cover save"

+BA.29E.05 – Q: Can Furioso Librarians use a psychic shooting attack in addition to firing all of their weapons? A: No, a psychic shooting attack may only be used in lieu of firing one weapon [RAW]. This also means on a turn the Dreadnought is not allowed to fire its weapons it would also be unable to use a psychic shooting attack.

This one has me a bit confused. A Walker may fire all it's weapons in a given shooting phase unless Shaken or Stunned. For purposes of a "normal" Librarian's shooting, other than the psychic test, Blood Lance and a Bolt Pistol are no different. So why is there a difference between Blood Lance + Storm Bolter + Magna Grapple and Storm Bolter + Magna Grapple for the Furioso Librarian? How/why is a psychic shooting attack any different than any other weapon?

the weasel king wrote:One thing that is nagging at me with the faq, I thought that cover saves were only granted from being shot at. If that's the case shouldn't the doom of malan'tai's leech life ability (neither shooting or psychic, just a special ability) not grant any cover saves ever?

Also in the space wolf faq there is a question on the 4th page that asks if the vengeful tornado grants cover saves to which the answer is "No – Vengeful Tornado is not a shooting attack
and therefore allows no cover save"

Here's the deal with that: There are no rules in the rulebook for dealing with wounds caused outside of shooting and assault. So technically when a model suffers a wound from something outside of those areas (failing a dangerous terrain test, special rules that just cause hits/wounds, etc), there aren't any rules telling us what to do with those hits/wounds, etc. Sure players generally connect the dots and assume that a 'hit' always means you then roll to wound for that hit and a wound always means you get an armor save (at least), but these are NOT actually things expressed in the rules.

The only full rules for resolving hits/wounds, etc, are found in the rules for the shooting phase. As such, in general we have to assume that all of the rules for resolving hits/wounds, etc in the shooting rules apply to any hit/wound a unit suffers, whenever it is logically possible to do so.

The other point you bring up is the SW FAQ ruling regarding 'Vengeful Tornado', where it seems to imply that wounds caused outside of 'shooting' don't benefit from cover saves except where specified otherwise. The problem with this is, depending on who is writing the particular rule for GW, this concept totally waffles back and forth. So for example you get stuff like the 'Acid Blood' rules in the Tyranid codex, which occur in the Assault phase, but for some reason specify that no cover saves can be taken against wounds caused by Acid Blood.

The truth is, if you go through all the codices you will find situations where it seems like the writers intend for cover saves to apply to wounds caused outside of shooting/assault except where noted otherwise and then other situations it seems like the writers intend for cover saves NOT to apply to wounds caused outside of shooting/assault except where noted otherwise.

Because of this inconsistency in the game and because the only rules for resolving hits/wounds, etc, are found in the shooting section, we believe that you need to stick with the idea of allowing cover saves to wounds whenever it is logically feasible to do so.

Sanguinary Dan wrote:

+BA.29E.05 – Q: Can Furioso Librarians use a psychic shooting attack in addition to firing all of their weapons? A: No, a psychic shooting attack may only be used in lieu of firing one weapon [RAW]. This also means on a turn the Dreadnought is not allowed to fire its weapons it would also be unable to use a psychic shooting attack.

This one has me a bit confused. A Walker may fire all it's weapons in a given shooting phase unless Shaken or Stunned. For purposes of a "normal" Librarian's shooting, other than the psychic test, Blood Lance and a Bolt Pistol are no different. So why is there a difference between Blood Lance + Storm Bolter + Magna Grapple and Storm Bolter + Magna Grapple for the Furioso Librarian? How/why is a psychic shooting attack any different than any other weapon?

The answer for this is in the rules for psychic shooting attacks in the rulebook (p50). Those rules specify that a psychic shooting attack is used by replacing one of the weapons the model is normally able to fire.

yakface wrote:

Sanguinary Dan wrote:

+BA.29E.05 – Q: Can Furioso Librarians use a psychic shooting attack in addition to firing all of their weapons? A: No, a psychic shooting attack may only be used in lieu of firing one weapon [RAW]. This also means on a turn the Dreadnought is not allowed to fire its weapons it would also be unable to use a psychic shooting attack.

This one has me a bit confused. A Walker may fire all it's weapons in a given shooting phase unless Shaken or Stunned. For purposes of a "normal" Librarian's shooting, other than the psychic test, Blood Lance and a Bolt Pistol are no different. So why is there a difference between Blood Lance + Storm Bolter + Magna Grapple and Storm Bolter + Magna Grapple for the Furioso Librarian? How/why is a psychic shooting attack any different than any other weapon?

The answer for this is in the rules for psychic shooting attacks in the rulebook (p50). Those rules specify that a psychic shooting attack is used by replacing one of the weapons the model is normally able to fire.

Why do you replace if the walker rule allows "all"? I get it with non-vehicle psykers, but only because they are normally allowed only one shooting attack. But I could have 1, 2 or 72 weapons on a Walker and still be allowed to fire each and every weapon. I guess I'm asking why the shooting attacks are treated differently when the rule on page 50 quite obviously describes shooting by a non-vehicle psyker in it's restrictions.

yakface wrote:

the weasel king wrote:One thing that is nagging at me with the faq, I thought that cover saves were only granted from being shot at. If that's the case shouldn't the doom of malan'tai's leech life ability (neither shooting or psychic, just a special ability) not grant any cover saves ever?

Also in the space wolf faq there is a question on the 4th page that asks if the vengeful tornado grants cover saves to which the answer is "No – Vengeful Tornado is not a shooting attack
and therefore allows no cover save"

Here's the deal with that: There are no rules in the rulebook for dealing with wounds caused outside of shooting and assault. So technically when a model suffers a wound from something outside of those areas (failing a dangerous terrain test, special rules that just cause hits/wounds, etc), there aren't any rules telling us what to do with those hits/wounds, etc. Sure players generally connect the dots and assume that a 'hit' always means you then roll to wound for that hit and a wound always means you get an armor save (at least), but these are NOT actually things expressed in the rules.

The only full rules for resolving hits/wounds, etc, are found in the rules for the shooting phase. As such, in general we have to assume that all of the rules for resolving hits/wounds, etc in the shooting rules apply to any hit/wound a unit suffers, whenever it is logically possible to do so.

The other point you bring up is the SW FAQ ruling regarding 'Vengeful Tornado', where it seems to imply that wounds caused outside of 'shooting' don't benefit from cover saves except where specified otherwise. The problem with this is, depending on who is writing the particular rule for GW, this concept totally waffles back and forth. So for example you get stuff like the 'Acid Blood' rules in the Tyranid codex, which occur in the Assault phase, but for some reason specify that no cover saves can be taken against wounds caused by Acid Blood.

The truth is, if you go through all the codices you will find situations where it seems like the writers intend for cover saves to apply to wounds caused outside of shooting/assault except where noted otherwise and then other situations it seems like the writers intend for cover saves NOT to apply to wounds caused outside of shooting/assault except where noted otherwise.

Because of this inconsistency in the game and because the only rules for resolving hits/wounds, etc, are found in the shooting section, we believe that you need to stick with the idea of allowing cover saves to wounds whenever it is logically feasible to do so.

I have a couple questions/concerns with this response,

First the space wolf rules clarification does not imply cover saves are not granted out of shooting it states "...is not a shooting attack and therefore allows no cover save".

Second thing is that you are implying that rules written by one member of the staff don't necessarily work out as planned for the whole so they should not be interpreted as rules for the whole. Would that mean that anything in any codex/faq that affects other armies doesn't work because it was written by one person? What about your faq then, doesn't that mean since you are writing rule changes, clarifications, etc. and aren't even part of the gw staff, shouldn't your rules that affect every army be discarded just as easily as you dispose of "...is not a shooting attack and therefore allows no cover save"?

Third, it seems like the rule clarification of the space wolf codex fits perfectly with what the brb explains for why you get cover saves in the fluff. It talks about cover from bullets/flying scrap metal. Special abilities (I'll use the Leech Life ability for lack of access right now to any others) such as Leech Life don't really affect anything except the enemies mind. Why would hiding behind a tree, rock, or piece of metal protect their mind?

I would like to emphasize that I mean no disrespect, I just disagree with this ruling and am trying to get you to see my point of view as I enjoy tournaments and this ruling can hurt the list I enjoy (Doom w/ support list) a decent amount.

Sanguinary Dan wrote:

yakface wrote:

Sanguinary Dan wrote:

+BA.29E.05 – Q: Can Furioso Librarians use a psychic shooting attack in addition to firing all of their weapons? A: No, a psychic shooting attack may only be used in lieu of firing one weapon [RAW]. This also means on a turn the Dreadnought is not allowed to fire its weapons it would also be unable to use a psychic shooting attack.

This one has me a bit confused. A Walker may fire all it's weapons in a given shooting phase unless Shaken or Stunned. For purposes of a "normal" Librarian's shooting, other than the psychic test, Blood Lance and a Bolt Pistol are no different. So why is there a difference between Blood Lance + Storm Bolter + Magna Grapple and Storm Bolter + Magna Grapple for the Furioso Librarian? How/why is a psychic shooting attack any different than any other weapon?

The answer for this is in the rules for psychic shooting attacks in the rulebook (p50). Those rules specify that a psychic shooting attack is used by replacing one of the weapons the model is normally able to fire.

Why do you replace if the walker rule allows "all"? I get it with non-vehicle psykers, but only because they are normally allowed only one shooting attack. But I could have 1, 2 or 72 weapons on a Walker and still be allowed to fire each and every weapon. I guess I'm asking why the shooting attacks are treated differently when the rule on page 50 quite obviously describes shooting by a non-vehicle psyker in it's restrictions.

I think 'replacing one' is the key here. A dred 'may' fire all weapons, however a psychic shooting attack replaces one of the weapons for any of the turns you choose to use it, so it is therefore one of the weapons of the dred that may be fired:

1. Dred has 2 ranged weapons, 2 Storm Bolters.
2. Player opts to use psychic shooting attack, replacing 1 weapon for that turn with the attack, so 1 storm bolter and one psychic shooting attack are now the weapons available.
3. The dread may fire all weapons = all the weapons on the dred following the replacement are the storm bolter and the psychic shooting attack = those 2 options may fire.

It's like taking an upgrade for just that turn in effect.

I guess I'll have to agree to disagree here. It just doesn't seem logical to me that if I had a Magna Grapple I could use it and Psy Shooty Power (generic 1 ea.), but if I don't buy the grapple I can only use the power OR the Storm Bolter.

And just to cover any smart alecks who'd like to chime in that I couldn't fire two weapons if I didn't buy the second weapon anyway...

INAT needs 4.1,,,

gw Blood angels FAQ up.. Several BA rules in 4.0 are wrong.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1240365a_FAQ_BloodAngels_2010.pdf

They automatically rule that GW FAQ trumps INAT FAQ, as far as I'm aware.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:They automatically rule that GW FAQ trumps INAT FAQ, as far as I'm aware.

Correct:

This FAQ is a completely 100% independent (unofficial) Q&A list for the game of Warhammer 40,000 5th edition. It isn't meant to replace the Games Workshop official FAQs (which can be downloaded from: www.games-workshop.com) in any way, and in fact the issues addressed by the GW FAQs aren‟t included in this document.

Of course it will be adjusted.

What prompted the change in the Astropath rule? I remember the old FAQ that it wouldn't work because it did not specifically say that it worked in reserves, unlike the Eldar Autarch.

I like this edition of the INAT FAQ. Before, my gaming group objected to using it because of some rules arguments around it, but now, our main peeves (Such as the Mawloc cover saves) have been changed to what we think is right. Thanks, INAT, for listening to the community when thinking of the rulings.

Greets gents,

Good job generally.

When you revise your BA FAQ could you please take another look at a few things:

1.
+BA.49F.02 – Q: regarding the end of the game and corbulos rule.

Pg. 90 VERY specifically says "a player must roll a dice".

If that player happens to be the BA player, then Corbs rule takes effect. ("This can be any roll you have made..")

There is really no question about this aside from the complications in deciding who gets that last roll- which can easily be diced off.

Please either change the status of this rule to "Rules Change" if you think it will cause complications or correct it.


2.
+BA.63H.01 - Did you mean Blood Lance rather than Blood Boil?

3.
Could you please have another discussion about the 3 special characters that have specified close combat attack strengths.

The wording on each of these character's weapons is very specific.
They all define the Strength at which the weapon strikes

Corbulo: "close combat attacks are made at Str5".
Seth: "Hits from the Blood Reaver are resolved at Str8"
Astorath: "..that strikes at Str6".

Furious Charge says: "..they add +1 to their Initiative and Strength characteristics...".

All of those characters have Strength characteristics of 4.
No higher. FC will take it to 5. If FC modifies anything else other than the Str characteristic of the model, we are breaking the rules. We definitely dont have permission according to those rules to modify the weapon characteristic

Please have another think about this!

Otherwise not a bad go at the rules!! GW made a few odd decisions (Libby dread wargear etc) but otherwise good good from your guys side.


You may also want to nip the silly Sanguine Sword debate in the bud too. (It has no duration listed so players are claiming it lasts for the game once casted).

Cheers,
Morticon.


edit: Took out the original number two, which Ive since been convinced otherwise on! Cheers.