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.

Out of curiosity, what will be done in the event that "conflicts" occur between Adepticon FAQ and John Spencer Q/A? Or, more specifically, we understand that FAQ will take precedence, but will it be modified in the future based on John Spencer's rulings?

ORK.93C.01 – Q: If a Boarding Plank is used to attack
a Walker does the Walker get to strike back?
A: No [RAW].

In an email to John Spencer, his reply was that the Boarding Plank cannot be used to attack Walkers. What kind of middle ground is sought when "Tournament official" and "GW official" rulings differ?

sourclams wrote:Out of curiosity, what will be done in the event that "conflicts" occur between Adepticon FAQ and John Spencer Q/A? Or, more specifically, we understand that FAQ will take precedence, but will it be modified in the future based on John Spencer's rulings?

ORK.93C.01 – Q: If a Boarding Plank is used to attack
a Walker does the Walker get to strike back?
A: No [RAW].

In an email to John Spencer, his reply was that the Boarding Plank cannot be used to attack Walkers. What kind of middle ground is sought when "Tournament official" and "GW official" rulings differ?

Jon spencer [rude statement removed by moderator] does not care about raw?

Yeah, and? This does nothing to answer my question.

Out of curiosity, what will be done in the event that "conflicts" occur between Adepticon FAQ and John Spencer Q/A?

Considering that John Spencer works for the GWUS as a customer service rep, which means that his primary job is probably in mail order fulfilment and problem resolution...I'd say that "Rulezboy" is an appropriate title for him. And we all know how accurate Rulezboyz are...

Or to put it another way, I don't plan to pay attention to anything John Spencer says at all. I can't speak for the rest of the FAQ Council, of course, but Rulezboyz are about as accurate as astrologers.

The whole point of having a method is so that you don't need to document the reasoning behind each answer. You provide a method, and then apply it to each question to generate the answers.
<snip>
My point is just that the community as a whole would be better served by a methodical account of ways of reading GW's materials than by well-intentioned eye-balling by some self-appointed authority, and it is well within your power to do so.

You're still somehow implying that a rigorous logical analysis can somehow properly interpret all of the rules that the GW studio writes. Unfortunately, there are many times when the initial source material (the rules) are imprecise, due to a host of different factors (including limited playtesting, imprecise wording, codexes from previous editions of the game, etc.).

I know what exactly what you seem to be describing - IRL, I've worked as a technical writer doing process documentation and development, sometimes for some pretty complicated processes that required significant operator judgement and input - the operators were doing much more than simply loading parts onto a conveyor or packing parts for shipment. But what made rigorous documentation for that process possible, is that we could control the majority of the variables. But regardless, on every troubleshooting and analytical flowchart, there was always the catch-all escape valve: "If X persists, contact engineering support personnel".

The INAT FAQ deals with a lot of situations and questions. And yes, often subjective judgements were required, to weigh the various factors involved. Where possible, we've stuck with RAW rulings, unless (and here's where the subjective judgement came into play) the RAW was overly complicated, contradictory, imprecise, or significantly led to an unfun experience. All of those are subjective judgements. There's no way to rate any of them on any sort of objective scale and have it mean anything of value.

I doubt that anyone would try to argue that the 40K rules are a tight, well-written ruleset. But the fact remains that we play this game, and we really like playing this game, and we want to have fun playing this game. Even competitive gamers like myself, play for fun. And one thing that almost everyone can agree on, is that little is more likely to kill the fun in a game besides a rules argument mid-game, especially if it revolves around a potentially game-turning point. Whether you win the argument or lose the argument, having the argument itself leads to bad feelings and reduced enjoyment. Especially in a tournament environment, where there's a time crunch involved, we want to play the game...not discuss the rules.

The INAT FAQ isn't there to present itself as the definiteive word in interpreting the 40K Rules. The INAT FAQ exists so that participants in a tournament can know how the rules will work in a given situation, so that players aren't discovering mid-game that they can't do what they thought they could do (or that their opponent can do something they weren't aware of).

Nurglitch, I know you said you were bowing out. But if you've got problems with rulings in the FAQ, I encourage you to start threads discussing them and laying out your rationale one way or another.

Mod in:

Please do not make rude statements about forum members or GW employees. It is against forum rules.

Further infractions will bring official warnings and the possibility of a suspension.

Thank you.

Mod out.

Marius Xerxes wrote:

Trekari wrote:RB.48B.01 – Q: Independent Characters joining a unit
do not confer their special rules onto the unit unless
“specified in the rule”. If an IC’s special rule says it
applies to “his unit” does this qualify?
A: Yes, “his unit” refers to the unit a character is joined to
[clarification].

This does not even come close to the example given on pg. 48 of the BRB.

See the following special rules for further examples of why "his unit" is not good enough:

Stubborn (USR)
Fearless (USR)
Night Vision/Acute Senses (USR)
Litanies of Hate (DA)
Liturgies of Battle (SM)
Honour of the Chapter (SM)
Bolter Drill (SM)
One Scalpel Short of a Medpack (Ork)

etc.

If this needs an errata for circumstances such as Shrike and Khan, who have abilities that are utterly useless, then issue errata to change their wording to meet the same level of "specified in the rule itself," but "his unit" is certainly not good enough. Otherwise, you create a slippery-slope for "his unit" to be liberally applied elsewhere at great consequences.

Im not entirely sure what you are saying here. What are you saying, exactly? I think RB.48B.02 covers this "Slippery Slope" you describe quite thoroughly.

I'm saying that "his unit" does not equal "specified in the rule itself" as all of those other examples demonstrate.

With Shrike and Khan, specifically, their special rules have absolutely no other possible intent other than to mean an attached unit. Since this is the case, it is better to issue an errata to bring the wording in-line with the other examples of "specified in the rule itself" rather than say "his unit" means the same thing.

Im a bit confused, in some cases you preach that the RAW sais this but you would prefer GW made a FAQ that rules it othervise(The ramming issue) but on the other hand you bring up rules that you change cause it makes the game more fun or better, sounds like double standards to me.

It also sounds like your pushing for orks.. either by saing its RAW or that its for the good of the game.

Lastyly, does this game really take a FAQ thats larger then the rulebook with changes (clarifications are good, pure rule changes are bad imo)? Doesnt this make it a whole diffrent game.

EDIT: Nevermind, I see you were directing those comments to the ruling council and not at me.

DH.08G.01 – Q: What, if anything does ‘Daemonic
Infestation’ do when playing with Chaos Space
Marine and Chaos Daemon armies?
A: Ignore this rule completely as all the units mentioned
besides Nurglings aren’t current units in the game and the
‘Sustained Attack’ rule isn’t included in the current rulebook
[clarification].

and

DH.20Q.01 – Q: Exactly what models are currently
considered a “daemon”?
A: Ignore the rule in the codex and instead consult the
following guidelines [rules change]:
• All models from the Chaos Daemons codex (excluding
Spawn created by ‘Boon of Mutation’).
• Chaos Space Marine Daemon Princes, Possessed Chaos
Space Marines, vehicles with the Daemonic Possession
upgrade, Summoned Greater and Lesser Daemons.
• The Eldar Avatar.
• Imperial Armor Daemon Lords and Spined Chaos
Beasts.

These two rulings are exactly the opposite of each other. The first one is RAW and the second one is completely subjective. Every other rule in any of the books that references something that doesn't exist anymore has been ruled as having no effect in game terms. Why is it that in this situation (which the Daemonhunter rules were clearly not designed) are these rules retconned?

Centurian99 wrote:

The whole point of having a method is so that you don't need to document the reasoning behind each answer. You provide a method, and then apply it to each question to generate the answers.
<snip>
My point is just that the community as a whole would be better served by a methodical account of ways of reading GW's materials than by well-intentioned eye-balling by some self-appointed authority, and it is well within your power to do so.

You're still somehow implying that a rigorous logical analysis can somehow properly interpret all of the rules that the GW studio writes. Unfortunately, there are many times when the initial source material (the rules) are imprecise, due to a host of different factors (including limited playtesting, imprecise wording, codexes from previous editions of the game, etc.).

...

The INAT FAQ deals with a lot of situations and questions. And yes, often subjective judgements were required, to weigh the various factors involved. Where possible, we've stuck with RAW rulings, unless (and here's where the subjective judgement came into play) the RAW was overly complicated, contradictory, imprecise, or significantly led to an unfun experience. All of those are subjective judgements. There's no way to rate any of them on any sort of objective scale and have it mean anything of value.

...

The INAT FAQ isn't there to present itself as the definiteive word in interpreting the 40K Rules. The INAT FAQ exists so that participants in a tournament can know how the rules will work in a given situation, so that players aren't discovering mid-game that they can't do what they thought they could do (or that their opponent can do something they weren't aware of).

Nurglitch, I know you said you were bowing out. But if you've got problems with rulings in the FAQ, I encourage you to start threads discussing them and laying out your rationale one way or another.

Don't get me wrong, I deeply appreciate the effort that goes into the INAT FAQ, and am mindful of the sheer effort that must go into compiling such a document. There is no doubt that the rules are definitely unclear in certain places, and yet more places where the Codex authors clearly fail to write what the mean. That said, there are points in the FAQ where you have taken rules that aren't unclear, confusing or contradictory, and simply changed things, and that greatly undermines the value of the FAQ as a whole.

Of the top of my head, there are 2 places where you have taken clear RAW and simply overruled it, DA scoring unit rules and Eldar Warp Spiders' Assault moves.

-DA.27C.01, In the case of the DA, your reasoning appears (given your previous post) to be that "No other army in the game can field (X)", to which the only answer would seem to be "So?" Every army can field something unique, why should this particular piece of uniqueness, in what can hardly be described as a top tier army list, be stripped away?

-ELD 36B.01, In the case of warp spiders using their warp jump generators in the enemy assault phase, a case can be made that the RAW in the Codex is somewhat ambiguous, but there is actually an official, GW derived clarification as to what it means. A clarification which you overrule; note that the impression in the FAQ (not one I am sure I agree with, but it's what is present) is that there is no ambiguity to be resolved, just that this particular rule ought to go.

The RAW in these two cases isn't "overly complicated," it isn't "contradictory," and it isn't regarded by the Council as "imprecise," so we can only assume that the council felt it "significantly led to an unfun experience". Since "[t]here's no way to rate any of them on any sort of objective scale and have it mean anything of value" and "[w]e don't bind ourselves to following poll results", (and "I don't plan to pay attention to anything [GW employee] says at all") I'm a little mystified how you expect us to discuss these rulings. How do we argue fun?

Are scoring DA vehicles more "unfun" then scoring Sternguard? More "unfun" then twin linking all the flamers, heavy-flamers, meltas and multi-meltas in your army for free? Are warp spiders moving in the enemy assault phase more "unfun" then monoliths that are literally indestructible if your army doesn't have a strength 9 weapon? Then the Deceiver being able to make a fall-back move in the enemy assault phase?

Much as it pains me to support Nurglitch, he's right, we "can't help if [we] don't know how the answers were adduced from GW's published material."

Again; SM92.01, Shrike's "See, But Remain Unseen" rule and ORK.62C.01, Snikrot's "Ambush" rule contains the wording "and models in his squad", which here you regard as insufficient to apply to an attached IC, in keeping with the main rulebook rule for special rules and ICs on p.48. But when nearly identical wording occurs for the Dok's Tools" ORK.38A.01, the FAQ regards this wording as sufficient, and there isn't even a question that similar wording in the Eldar warlock powers allows Conceal, Embolden and Enhance to apply to an attached IC.

The council has decided that "his squad/unit" is enough to satisfy the rule for ICs gaining special rules by joining a squad when it comes to wargear and persistent psychic powers, but the same wording is insufficient elsewhere(RB.48B.02): why? Where can we find the RAW that makes this distinction, and if it's not RAW, and instead is to avoid something that "significantly led to an unfun experience", how can we discuss this point? Is infiltrating Vulkan with Shrike or Ghaz with Snikrot more "unfun" then a Farseer rerolling failed psychic tests or a painboy giving Ghaz FnP?

I really do appreciate the effort the council is putting into this, but inconsistencies and rules changes that are so opaque really undermine my enthusiasm for the finished product. How can I recommend the FAQ to my FLGS for an all comers tournament when using the FAQ risks someone showing up with an army that has certain abilities according to RAW and significantly fewer under the FAQ? What do we say to the DA player who shows up thinking his army has 5 scoring units, only to discover under the FAQ he only has 2?

You won't find the RAW support for their distinction that wargear-derived special rules are somehow not "special rules" that pg. 48 covers. Of course, Pg. 48 neither makes, nor implies, any distinction that the source of special rule a unit has ("unit's special rules") matters in the least. This is a distinction the council has made with no supporting evidence in the rules.

You also won't find an answer from the council as to why other wargear is specific when it's meant to convey a bonus to a group other than the unit who purchased it, and yet they ruled Dok's Tools to be different.

Pg. 11 of the most recent FNP thread has my points on the issue, which nobody has refuted. Not anyone here at Dakka, not anyone at my local FLGS, etc. I've submitted those exact points to the ruling council, but given they obviously disagree with me, it seems unlikely that my position will be argued effectively.

How anyone can blindly recommend the FAQ when we have no idea what kind of arguments were made for each decision is something I don't have an answer to.

Giving as much respect as I am capable of giving to the members themselves, we have no idea if they just flipped coins to determine some of the answers, or whether a solid argument was brought forth. This is the consequence of not having the method or reasons stated.

Shaggoth wrote:
These two rulings are exactly the opposite of each other. The first one is RAW and the second one is completely subjective. Every other rule in any of the books that references something that doesn't exist anymore has been ruled as having no effect in game terms. Why is it that in this situation (which the Daemonhunter rules were clearly not designed) are these rules retconned?

The main reason is that for the majority of players out there, its blisteringly obvious what counts as a daemon. Although I've added it to the review list, because you're correct that it is inconsistent.

Buzzsaw wrote:Don't get me wrong, I deeply appreciate the effort that goes into the INAT FAQ, and am mindful of the sheer effort that must go into compiling such a document. There is no doubt that the rules are definitely unclear in certain places, and yet more places where the Codex authors clearly fail to write what the mean. That said, there are points in the FAQ where you have taken rules that aren't unclear, confusing or contradictory, and simply changed things, and that greatly undermines the value of the FAQ as a whole.

Of the top of my head, there are 2 places where you have taken clear RAW and simply overruled it, DA scoring unit rules and Eldar Warp Spiders' Assault moves.

I've already added the DA scoring unit thing to our review list. But are you seriously advocating that warp spiders should be able to make their assault jump in the opponent's assault phase?

Buzzsaw wrote:
Much as it pains me to support Nurglitch, he's right, we "can't help if [we] don't know how the answers were adduced from GW's published material."

I've already explained it. And yes, it does leave a huge "fudge" element, and is probably the reason why it took us as long as it did to discuss the really contentious issues.

If you've got a strong opinion in another fashion, marshall up an argument for why a particular ruling should be changed, and start a thread (as Trekari has done).

Buzzsaw wrote:
I really do appreciate the effort the council is putting into this, but inconsistencies and rules changes that are so opaque really undermine my enthusiasm for the finished product. How can I recommend the FAQ to my FLGS for an all comers tournament when using the FAQ risks someone showing up with an army that has certain abilities according to RAW and significantly fewer under the FAQ? What do we say to the DA player who shows up thinking his army has 5 scoring units, only to discover under the FAQ he only has 2?

Already said that the DA thing has been added to the review list.

I think, however, that there's a distinct misunderstanding as to the purpose and how the INAT FAQ is supposed to work. It's not meant to be something that's sprung on an opponent mid-game. It's meant to be something that will give players an understanding of how contentious situations will be resolved, so they can go into the game and not worry about the rules.

Kallbrand wrote:Lastyly, does this game really take a FAQ thats larger then the rulebook with changes (clarifications are good, pure rule changes are bad imo)? Doesnt this make it a whole diffrent game.

To be fair, the FAQ deals with questions from the rulebook, every codex, and every Imperial Armor and Apocalypse book. So its page count is significantly less than all those books combined.

Your second point was definitely a concern...and was the reason why after a short discussion, it was decided NOT to attempt to "rationalize" the game (i.e. make all force weapons work the same, make all storm shields work the same, etc.). However, at the same time, the simple fact is that depending on where you play at, everyone plays a different version of the game. Some places play that deathrollas can ram. Some don't. Some allow a warboss to join snikkrot's kommandos and ambush. Some don't.

There are ways to argue each point of view, and if you're looking for an Absolute Truth answer...well, the GW Studio isn't really all that interested in providing one. So as tournament organizers, especially for a tournament that draws in attendees from all over the country and the world, the last thing we want is to spring a local ruling on someone who's travelled hundreds or thousands of miles to come play in a tournament.

Like I said...we're not claiming that everything we've done in this initial doc is 100% correct, or even that it's set in stone. IF you've got an issue, start a thread and let me know so I can link it in. When we do our review in a few weeks, we'll be sure to take another look at issues that people are raising.

SM.69C.01 - you say drop pods that scatter off the board must roll for deep strike mishap. and worse the occupents must roll a second time as well. This is incorrect and the second roll doesn't make any sense.

Drop pods have inertial guidance and do not roll on deep strike mishap. This is the purpose of inertial guidance. Off the board is simply placed on the board at that table edge.

you state that the following contribute to your idea: BT.22B.01, BA.06O.01, DA.35B.01 the current SM codex over rules these and RAW.

SM.92.01 – Q: Can another Independent Character
join Shrike (and his unit) before the game and gain
the infiltrate special rule?
A: No, as Shrike’s ability is a special rule that does not
specify it affects other ICs joined to his unit, it does not
[clarification].
Ref: ORK.62C.01, RB.95A.01

This is incorrect. The SM codex very specifically states "Shrike (and all models in his squad) benefit from the infiltrate special rule."

Anyone that shrike is will gets it. ANYONE. ANY MODEL. ANYONE.

Centurian99 wrote:

Buzzsaw wrote:Don't get me wrong, I deeply appreciate the effort that goes into the INAT FAQ, and am mindful of the sheer effort that must go into compiling such a document. There is no doubt that the rules are definitely unclear in certain places, and yet more places where the Codex authors clearly fail to write what the mean. That said, there are points in the FAQ where you have taken rules that aren't unclear, confusing or contradictory, and simply changed things, and that greatly undermines the value of the FAQ as a whole.

Of the top of my head, there are 2 places where you have taken clear RAW and simply overruled it, DA scoring unit rules and Eldar Warp Spiders' Assault moves.

I've already added the DA scoring unit thing to our review list. But are you seriously advocating that warp spiders should be able to make their assault jump in the opponent's assault phase?

I'm not advocating anything with regards to warp spiders: as I pointed out, you designated it a "GW FAQ overrule" in the INAT FAQ. From the rule as presented in the GW FAQ and the INAT FAQ, it's clear the Council believes warp spiders can, by RAW/GW FAQ, move in the enemy assault phase. The Council has then decided to change that rule, but Why? There are certainly sillier rules out there, and certainly less fun ones, and there are even rules that have similar (albeit much higher) potency, but the Council decided to change this one from what they believed it to be. If I did think the rule entailed what the Council does, its ruling is so opaque there is no useful avenue of argument left open, as I note below.

Centurian99 wrote:

Buzzsaw wrote:
Much as it pains me to support Nurglitch, he's right, we "can't help if [we] don't know how the answers were adduced from GW's published material."

I've already explained it. And yes, it does leave a huge "fudge" element, and is probably the reason why it took us as long as it did to discuss the really contentious issues.

If you've got a strong opinion in another fashion, marshall up an argument for why a particular ruling should be changed, and start a thread (as Trekari has done).

As I pointed out in my original post, in the absence of a stated reason, we're left without a context to argue in. It's a fine thing to advance a position, but my complaints are centered around rulings where the Council has taken it upon themselves to simply change the rules ("rules change" and "GW FAQ overrule"). In such cases it is explicitly stated that the Council has considered and rejected the RAW, what argument is appropriate? That the Council is mistaken about the nature of fun and "unfun"? That they've spread the "fudge" too thickly? You mention that the DA scoring rules have "been added to the review list", why? If you are "not binding ourselves entirely by the RAW", you "don't bind ourselves to following poll results," and you "don't plan to pay attention to anything (GW rep) John Spencer says at all", what evidence is useful? I'm not trying to be snide here, I honestly don't know what is left to talk about in such a situation.

Centurian99 wrote:

Buzzsaw wrote:
I really do appreciate the effort the council is putting into this, but inconsistencies and rules changes that are so opaque really undermine my enthusiasm for the finished product. How can I recommend the FAQ to my FLGS for an all comers tournament when using the FAQ risks someone showing up with an army that has certain abilities according to RAW and significantly fewer under the FAQ? What do we say to the DA player who shows up thinking his army has 5 scoring units, only to discover under the FAQ he only has 2?

Already said that the DA thing has been added to the review list.

I think, however, that there's a distinct misunderstanding as to the purpose and how the INAT FAQ is supposed to work. It's not meant to be something that's sprung on an opponent mid-game. It's meant to be something that will give players an understanding of how contentious situations will be resolved, so they can go into the game and not worry about the rules.

Centurian99 wrote:There are ways to argue each point of view, and if you're looking for an Absolute Truth answer...well, the GW Studio isn't really all that interested in providing one. So as tournament organizers, especially for a tournament that draws in attendees from all over the country and the world, the last thing we want is to spring a local ruling on someone who's travelled hundreds or thousands of miles to come play in a tournament.

While that is a fine goal for the Adepticon FAQ, I consider it a very unrealistic idea as applied to the Independent National Warhammer 40,000 Tournament FAQ. For the Adepticon, it's entirely reasonable to have the existence of the FAQ serve as constructive notice, to expect no attendees to be ignorant of its contents and idiosyncrasies. For the Independent National Warhammer 40,000 Tournament FAQ such an assumption is entirely unreasonable. At the small tournaments at local FLGS the first time that participants may even know there is an associated FAQ is when they pay their entry fee. At a tournament like that, an FAQ serves as a way for unsophisticated and impartial judges to settle mid-game arguments quickly, not arbitrarily revise rules about which there are no outstanding questions.

Fundamentally, it does seem that some of us are looking for something different then what this year's INAT FAQ is intended to provide: we're looking for an FAQ, a systematized collection of rulings on contentious issues designed to quickly resolve ambiguities as they may occur, and primarily an aid to judges and organizers, rather then a document that participants must have previously familiarized themselves with. The current mode of the INAT FAQ, on the other hand, appears directed towards players that will read the entire FAQ well in advance of the tourney and, indeed, craft their armies around what is essentially a revised Warhammer 40k rules set. It's your FAQ though, and considering it's being provided gratis, I suppose it's past time I stopped derailing the thread.

RB.48B.02: it's very murky what exactly is being clarified here, as there appears to be no textual support in the Codex for the division between special rules granted by characters/models and special rules granted by wargear/persistent psychic abilities. Note the Eldar Codex: the Eldar Warlock powers clearly affect attached ICs, but so do Exarch Powers, otherwise the disclaimer on page 33, that a Striking Scorpion Exarch's Shadowstrike power cannot affect an attached autarch, is redundant and unnecessary. Moreover, the Eldar FAQ clearly states that the Skyleap Exarch power of a Swooping Hawk Exarch does affect an attached autarch (so long as the autarch has wings).

GW Eldar FAQ, page 2-3 wrote:Q. Can a unit of Swooping Hawks use Skyleap if the unit contains an autarch without wings?
A. The unit may only utilize skyleap if the autarch has wings. The autarch must then remain with the unit and deep strike together with them (i.e. it cannot seperate from the unit when it is placed back in reserve).

Marcus Iago Geruasius wrote:SM.69C.01 - you say drop pods that scatter off the board must roll for deep strike mishap. and worse the occupents must roll a second time as well. This is incorrect and the second roll doesn't make any sense.

Drop pods have inertial guidance and do not roll on deep strike mishap. This is the purpose of inertial guidance. Off the board is simply placed on the board at that table edge.

you state that the following contribute to your idea: BT.22B.01, BA.06O.01, DA.35B.01 the current SM codex over rules these and RAW.

First...I'm not sure where you're getting the 2nd roll thing. The answer we wrote in the FAQ clearly states that you make one roll for both the pod and the embarked unit.

Second, the RAW on Drop Pods doesn't address the table edge at all. It simply says they arrive using the Deep Strike rules. The Deep Strike rules have a specific provision for what happens if things scatter off the table, hence Drop Pods can scatter off the table.

Marcus Iago Geruasius wrote:SM.92.01 – Q: Can another Independent Character
join Shrike (and his unit) before the game and gain
the infiltrate special rule?
A: No, as Shrike’s ability is a special rule that does not
specify it affects other ICs joined to his unit, it does not
[clarification].
Ref: ORK.62C.01, RB.95A.01

This is incorrect. The SM codex very specifically states "Shrike (and all models in his squad) benefit from the infiltrate special rule."

Anyone that shrike is will gets it. ANYONE. ANY MODEL. ANYONE.

No need to shout.

This issue has been discussed ad nauseum here on Dakka and in other places. The FAQ council debated it at length, exactly what's meant by "his squad" or "his unit", how it interacts with the rules on Characters and Special Rules located on page 48, etc. I'll admit that this one was probably some of the more contentious discussions we had, because depending on how permissively or restrictively you interpret the RAW, you can come to some contradictory conclusions on how those rules are supposed to work.

Actually, if you want to play by the strictest RAW, Shrike's ability is useless, because Shrike can't (by RAW) actually join a squad until he is either (A) deployed or (B) placed in reserve. The squad he would like to join will either be deployed normally (and therefore can't infiltrate) or is in reserve (and therefore can't infiltrate). There's no condition within the RAW to allow Shrike to join a squad and deploy as infiltrators.

Even the most rigorous advocates for RAW on the Council admitted that was a bit silly. So we actually had to make a rules change to allow Shrike to have a squad infiltrate with him.

Buzzsaw wrote:I'm not advocating anything with regards to warp spiders: as I pointed out, you designated it a "GW FAQ overrule" in the INAT FAQ. From the rule as presented in the GW FAQ and the INAT FAQ, it's clear the Council believes warp spiders can, by RAW/GW FAQ, move in the enemy assault phase. The Council has then decided to change that rule, but Why? There are certainly sillier rules out there, and certainly less fun ones, and there are even rules that have similar (albeit much higher) potency, but the Council decided to change this one from what they believed it to be.

To be perfectly honest...because someone asked the question.

Buzzsaw wrote:
As I pointed out in my original post, in the absence of a stated reason, we're left without a context to argue in. It's a fine thing to advance a position, but my complaints are centered around rulings where the Council has taken it upon themselves to simply change the rules ("rules change" and "GW FAQ overrule"). In such cases it is explicitly stated that the Council has considered and rejected the RAW, what argument is appropriate? That the Council is mistaken about the nature of fun and "unfun"? That they've spread the "fudge" too thickly? You mention that the DA scoring rules have "been added to the review list", why? If you are "not binding ourselves entirely by the RAW", you "don't bind ourselves to following poll results," and you "don't plan to pay attention to anything (GW rep) John Spencer says at all", what evidence is useful? I'm not trying to be snide here, I honestly don't know what is left to talk about in such a situation.

That's a fair response. I'm trying to do you, and everyone else who's reading this thread, the courtesy of telling the truth. Part of that is being up-front, as much as possible, about the process and thoughts that went into creating the INAT FAQ.

And all I can say is if you disagree with a point in particular, write up a cogent argument using whatever premises or grounds you feel should be considered, start a thread here discussing it, and let me know so I can add it to the list of topics for review. The FAQ council has a good mix of people on it, from strident advocates of as strict RAW as possible, to people who consider the RAI to be equally important.

Buzzsaw wrote:
While that is a fine goal for the Adepticon FAQ, I consider it a very unrealistic idea as applied to the Independent National Warhammer 40,000 Tournament FAQ. For the Adepticon, it's entirely reasonable to have the existence of the FAQ serve as constructive notice, to expect no attendees to be ignorant of its contents and idiosyncrasies. For the Independent National Warhammer 40,000 Tournament FAQ such an assumption is entirely unreasonable. At the small tournaments at local FLGS the first time that participants may even know there is an associated FAQ is when they pay their entry fee. At a tournament like that, an FAQ serves as a way for unsophisticated and impartial judges to settle mid-game arguments quickly, not arbitrarily revise rules about which there are no outstanding questions.

Fundamentally, it does seem that some of us are looking for something different then what this year's INAT FAQ is intended to provide: we're looking for an FAQ, a systematized collection of rulings on contentious issues designed to quickly resolve ambiguities as they may occur, and primarily an aid to judges and organizers, rather then a document that participants must have previously familiarized themselves with. The current mode of the INAT FAQ, on the other hand, appears directed towards players that will read the entire FAQ well in advance of the tourney and, indeed, craft their armies around what is essentially a revised Warhammer 40k rules set. It's your FAQ though, and considering it's being provided gratis, I suppose it's past time I stopped derailing the thread.

Hey, I don't think you're derailing the thread at all...and Yakface will jump in and let us know if we get too off-base.

My response to your statement (which does have an element of truth to it) is twofold. First a FAQ such as you describe is simply impossible, or at the very least, unrealistic. It assumes that there is a "correct" way to play that can easily be determined, and that all that is necessary is that the judges and organizers understand that "correct" way. I agree that its important that the judges and organizers understand how the game should be played...but the onus should not and cannot be entirely removed from the players as well. Because ultimately, we as players are just as responsible for having a good time while playing, as are the tournament organizers and judges.

Many of those contentious issues arise when players who are unfamiliar with one another have their interpretations clash. FLGS #1 may play the game so that Deathrollas work against vehicles. FLGS might play the other way. Both interpretations could, depending on your point of view, be viewed as being correct. When FLGS 1 hosts a tournament, and players from FLGS 2 travel to play in it...the players from FLGS #2 could be in for a rude shock.

Second, as to why its called the INAT FAQ as opposed to the AdeptiCon FAQ, the answer is partially from the motto of AdeptiCon itself: For Gamers, By Gamers. We worked to get a variety of perspectives including ones not really connected with running the convention, for the FAQ, because we saw a need for such a document. Many of us travel to various major tournaments across the country, or even to the UK, and minor differences in interpretation can easily lead to frustration and generally unfun experiences.

For better or worse, AdeptiCon is the largest independent Games Workshop hobby convention in the US, and quite likely in the world. We draw in players from across the country and the world, and we feel a great responsibility towards making sure that everyone who attends has a good time and enjoys themselves. We call it the INAT FAQ because we want to make it available to everyone. It's created independently of the GW Games Dev studio, its intended for a national audience, and its intended to make the tournament experience better. Plus Yakface likes abreviations.

For the first five years of AdeptiCon, we didn't have a FAQ. Initially, we felt that it wasn't really needed. But as AdeptiCon grew, we attracted more and more players who came from different parts of the country and the world, and what we found, for example, was that people from the West Coast played a very different game of 40K than people from the East Coast, which had some differences between the way that people in the Midwest played the game. As we kept growing, the need for a comprehensive FAQ became obvious. Equally obvious, through our discussions with various people from the GW Studio, was that they had no intention of creating such a document. So we had to create it ourselves.

The first version of the FAQ, which we created last year, was much, much more heavily weighted towards "how people play the game" interpretations, because the general feeling was that the average gamer shouldn't need to look at a FAQ to play the game. With the release 5th Ed., and in particular the recent updates and tendencies within the GW FAQ's, this version of the FAQ was developed to in essence be more in line with the way GW seems to be trying to take the game.

Anyway, that probably doesn't tell you anything at all...but hopefully it was of some value. Or else I just wasted a minute of your time, and I apologize. Anyway, back to the FAQ itself.

Buzzsaw wrote:
RB.48B.02: it's very murky what exactly is being clarified here, as there appears to be no textual support in the Codex for the division between special rules granted by characters/models and special rules granted by wargear/persistent psychic abilities. Note the Eldar Codex: the Eldar Warlock powers clearly affect attached ICs, but so do Exarch Powers, otherwise the disclaimer on page 33, that a Striking Scorpion Exarch's Shadowstrike power cannot affect an attached autarch, is redundant and unnecessary. Moreover, the Eldar FAQ clearly states that the Skyleap Exarch power of a Swooping Hawk Exarch does affect an attached autarch (so long as the autarch has wings).

GW Eldar FAQ, page 2-3 wrote:Q. Can a unit of Swooping Hawks use Skyleap if the unit contains an autarch without wings?
A. The unit may only utilize skyleap if the autarch has wings. The autarch must then remain with the unit and deep strike together with them (i.e. it cannot seperate from the unit when it is placed back in reserve).

The "textual support" you're looking for was to define "special rules" as narrowly as possible...which pretty much ended up defining "special rules" as rules listed specifically as "special rules", either in the unit description/profile, or in the USR. Once you do that, you end up with a difference between special rules that grant other special rules, and wargear/psychic powers that grant special rules.

Sry for repeating my self, but here is my bunch of questions:

ELD.51D.01.
Tried hard, but found no RAW evidence of staff of Ultramar being double-handed.

Dark Eldar.
How does Night shield interact with melta weapons abbility to get an extra dice?

DH.30A.01. WH FAQ fixes this moment with WH vehiecles. I see no point of keeping this restiction for DHs.

RD.67A.03. Does emergency disembarction end on the players turn it happened on (thus, mainly, only preventing making assault distance longer by closing access points) or lasts for a complete turn (thus being similiar to 4th ed. entanglling)?

On Marcus Iago Geruasius statements I can comment that drop pod RAW states that you do suffer from hitting the table edge.

While you may have defined "special rules" as narrowly as possible, you have no justification in the text or rules to do so.

Zubb wrote:Sry for repeating my self, but here is my bunch of questions:

Sorry, must have missed it.

Zubb wrote:
ELD.51D.01.
Tried hard, but found no RAW evidence of staff of Ultramar being double-handed.

More importantly, it's not listed as being single-handed either.

Zubb wrote:
Dark Eldar. - How does Night shield interact with melta weapons abbility to get an extra dice?

DH.30A.01. WH FAQ fixes this moment with WH vehiecles. I see no point of keeping this restiction for DHs.

RD.67A.03. Does emergency disembarction end on the players turn it happened on (thus, mainly, only preventing making assault distance longer by closing access points) or lasts for a complete turn (thus being similiar to 4th ed. entanglling)?

Added for review.

Trekari wrote:While you may have defined "special rules" as narrowly as possible, you have no justification in the text or rules to do so.

Actually, by strictest RAW...while USR is clearly a defined game term, "special rules" is not. So there is no more justification for interpreting it broadly than there is for interpreting it narrowly.

Might have been good to have explain how chaos deamons deploy after the recent 'ardboys issues.

Centurian99 wrote:

Zubb wrote:
ELD.51D.01.
Tried hard, but found no RAW evidence of staff of Ultramar being double-handed.

More importantly, it's not listed as being single-handed either.

Neither are power weapons, witchblades, force weapons etc.
Does that mean they are all two-handed unless your codex says otherwise?

Centurian99 wrote:

Trekari wrote:While you may have defined "special rules" as narrowly as possible, you have no justification in the text or rules to do so.

Actually, by strictest RAW...while USR is clearly a defined game term, "special rules" is not. So there is no more justification for interpreting it broadly than there is for interpreting it narrowly.

If it were meant to be a more narrow interpretation, it would be refer to them in the form of a proper noun. Instead, they used 'special rules' to cover the broad range of sources. "Special Rules" = Narrow. "special rules" = Broad.

First, I appreciate the time and effort that you went through to create your FAQ. It's something that I wish others would do for other things I get involved in, as far as trying to get things as ironed out ahead of schedule as possible.

Now, I've read a bit of the document, and I've read through the responses here. And I have to say, interesting set of House Rules. That's pretty much what it is. Hopefully though, if you're using this for a tournament your billing it as a 'Not quite 40K tournament.'

If none of the people who designed the FAQ are actually GW employees, working in the game design departement, specifically in the group who is responsible for making and balancing the rules, and updating official FAQ's and Errata, then everything here is simply house rules, as they have no authority to discard, or change, RAW. None. I'm sorry if they don't like how some of them work, or don't feel that they make sense. Doesn't mean you get to change RAW. Write a letter to GW to let them know of your dissatisfaction, vote with your dollars, buy a different product till they start answering the questions themselves.

Interpretations, that is what you can do with your own FAQ, particularly for your own tournament. You find something that really is ambiguous, go ahead and make the decision for your tourney, get it out of the way. Makes sense, and congratulations on that part, it does look like you put quite a bit of effort into it.

But no changing RAW. You start changing RAW, you change what the game is. If the point of this thing was to help narrow down the various ways people play so that everyone is on the same page, your doing exactly the opposite when your changing the actual written rules.

dancingcricket wrote:But no changing RAW.

Why not?

The designers themselves say that changing the rules is just fine, so long as both players agree. (Rulebook, page 2: The Most Important Rule!)

All this document is really, is a list of rules that players are agreeing to all at once, if they agree to use this FAQ.

It's perfectly within the scope of the Most Important Rule to use this FAQ and still call your tournament a 40K tournament.

dancingcricket wrote:
If none of the people who designed the FAQ are actually GW employees, working in the game design departement, specifically in the group who is responsible for making and balancing the rules, and updating official FAQ's and Errata, then everything here is simply house rules, as they have no authority to discard, or change, RAW. None. I'm sorry if they don't like how some of them work, or don't feel that they make sense. Doesn't mean you get to change RAW. Write a letter to GW to let them know of your dissatisfaction, vote with your dollars, buy a different product till they start answering the questions themselves.

Hmm...so by your reckoning, Shrike's special rules are worthless, because no squad can deploy as infiltrators and join him unless they already have infiltrate. And drop pods that scatter on top of friendly models roll on the deep strike mishap chart. Not to mention that independent characters can't end their moves within 2" of a vehicle (which means they can never disembark from a vehicle after its moved), independent characters inside a vehicle that moves within 2" of another squad forces the character to automatically join that squad, people who assemble drop pods with their doors open are cheating, techmarines can't use their servo-arm attacks if they have a power weapon/fist/thunder hammer, BT Land Raider can't carry a mix of terminators and power-armored marines, and psycannon bolts ignore cover saves.

Unfortunately, GW's Games Dev studio has flat out said that they're really not interested in creating and maintaining a thorough, complete FAQ.

dancingcricket wrote:
But no changing RAW. You start changing RAW, you change what the game is. If the point of this thing was to help narrow down the various ways people play so that everyone is on the same page, your doing exactly the opposite when your changing the actual written rules.

You're assuming, of course, that everyone plays by the actual written rules. Even here at Dakka, in YMDC , the winner of the "how do you actually play" polls is often not the RAW way of playing.

Trekari wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:

Trekari wrote:While you may have defined "special rules" as narrowly as possible, you have no justification in the text or rules to do so.

Actually, by strictest RAW...while USR is clearly a defined game term, "special rules" is not. So there is no more justification for interpreting it broadly than there is for interpreting it narrowly.

If it were meant to be a more narrow interpretation, it would be refer to them in the form of a proper noun. Instead, they used 'special rules' to cover the broad range of sources. "Special Rules" = Narrow. "special rules" = Broad.

So you want to create a rigorous deductive argument using the designer's intent...

All you can really conclude is that special rules isn't a defined game term.

Webbe wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:

Zubb wrote:
ELD.51D.01.
Tried hard, but found no RAW evidence of staff of Ultramar being double-handed.

More importantly, it's not listed as being single-handed either.

Neither are power weapons, witchblades, force weapons etc.
Does that mean they are all two-handed unless your codex says otherwise?

That's a good point.

Of course, GW has also never said that the default status of close combat weaponry is one-handed. So in other words, its impossible to determine through the RAW whether most of the weapons in the game are one or two-handed.

I don't understand why Bikes can't hold objectives if they are a troop choice. If it's because of their speed, do Jump units that are troops not hold objectives?

Also, why is it that Daemonhunters can't get into transports purchased for another unit? When GW was hollering the benefits of 5th edition they had a flyer with 3 things every army gained in 5th edition. Grey Knights getting into storm troopers transports was one of them.

I understand how difficult these things are to write (hard enough to need input, easy enough that GW should be doing them) after all, we just put out Fluid 40k at www.dicelikethunder.com. It's similiar to this but has a different mission statement and philosophy.

I'm just curious what the rational on these two decisions was.

Centurian99 wrote:
Hmm...so by your reckoning, Shrike's special rules are worthless, because no squad can deploy as infiltrators and join him unless they already have infiltrate. And drop pods that scatter on top of friendly models roll on the deep strike mishap chart. Not to mention that independent characters can't end their moves within 2" of a vehicle (which means they can never disembark from a vehicle after its moved), independent characters inside a vehicle that moves within 2" of another squad forces the character to automatically join that squad, people who assemble drop pods with their doors open are cheating, techmarines can't use their servo-arm attacks if they have a power weapon/fist/thunder hammer, BT Land Raider can't carry a mix of terminators and power-armored marines, and psycannon bolts ignore cover saves.

Makes sense or not, they are the Rules as Written. Now, for house rules, special engagements, that sort of thing, you want to change a rule, for that engagement, go ahead. You want to run a Chess tournament and let Queens move as knights in addition to their normal movement capabilities, fine. Just be aware that you aren't playing according to how the rules are written, and changing the rules means you aren't playing the same game.

Unfortunately, GW's Games Dev studio has flat out said that they're really not interested in creating and maintaining a thorough, complete FAQ.

So? I'm not saying don't make a FAQ. I'm saying frequently asked questions is not the same as 'Rules we didn't like so decided to change.' A FAQ that clarifies how WBB rolls work, yes, makes a lot of sense, and let's everyone know how this issue is to be resolved in the events you run, great. A FAQ is supposed to answer questions on how a rule is interpreted, how something is done, based upon what the rules are. There's been several people posting on the boards how they feel X should be stronger, or Y should be weaker, based upon how they feel RL is, or their picture of how it should work is, but fortunately, they tend to put most of those in proposed rules or discussions, not in YMDC. Coming out and just changing the rules though, that's not FAQ. That's Errata, and that is something that should be done through official chanels. And if GW doesn't seem to be willing to update their errata and FAQs, well, A) it's not really much of a suprise, and B) is part of what you have to deal with if you play GW games.

You're assuming, of course, that everyone plays by the actual written rules. Even here at Dakka, in YMDC , the winner of the "how do you actually play" polls is often not the RAW way of playing.

And hey, there's the purpose of the FAQ, letting people know that the rules say you play this way, not the way you've been playing, or interpreting the rules.