40k FAQ submission thread for the INAT FAQ **w/v5.1.1+Appendix v3.0** (updated 4/12/2012)

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.

**Daemon-Archon Ren**

Double post (just now realising)

However, another question about Eldrad...

If Eldrad casts 3 spells in 1 turn (using his staff) does he still have a power weapon in melee that wounds on a 2+, also, does this ability refresh per GAME TURN or PLAYER TURN.

**Maenus_Rajhana**

Eldrad Ulthuan's staff allows him to use any psychic power a second time in a turn (Codex: Eldar pg. 51). However, psykers may not use more than one shooting attack in a turn unless they can fire two ranged weapons in a turn (BRB pg. 50). Can Eldrad Mind War and/or Eldritch storm a second time in the same turn?

**Gavo**

I see that on your FAQ, you say the Manticore, when firing indirectly, counts as multiple barrage. Since you say that, would I be correct in assuming that firing directly, you would fire it as D3 large blasts (no multiple barrage). Also, as you are not firing it barrage, the enemy would not be pinned, correct?

**dancingcricket**

I was looking at the team tournament, and saw the possibility of forgeworld and/or apoc units. I didn't see the Necron Tomb Stalker in the list of allowed, is it going to be added? (Hopefully soon, there's a local tournament using the adepticon format we'd like to play in, see how it works.)

**yakface**

dancingcricket wrote:I was looking at the team tournament, and saw the possibility of forgeworld and/or apoc units. I didn't see the Necron Tomb Stalker in the list of allowed, is it going to be added? (Hopefully soon, there's a local tournament using the adepticon format we'd like to play in, see how it works.)

Adepticon only allows units in published Imperial Armor books. Rules that are still experimental (web only) are not allowed. So unless the Tomb Stalker rules appear in IA10 (which I'm pretty sure they don't) then you're out of luck for using it at Adepticon...unless you wanted to use the model to 'count as' a C'tan, for example.

**dancingcricket**

Next question that came up, for the team tournament, is phase out per player, or per coalition? Not sure if it's covered by brothers in arms.

**yakface**

dancingcricket wrote:Next question that came up, for the team tournament, is phase out per player, or per coalition? Not sure if it's covered by brothers in arms.

Questions for a specific tournament (as opposed to general 40K questions) need to go to that particular tournament organizer. So if you're playing in a team event somewhere, you need to send this question to that tournament organizer to get your answer!

**megatrons2nd**

How does the strategic assets:

Major Possession and Null Field Generator interact?

My interpretation is that the Independent Character models in the area of effect would not be eligible to be possessed.

I could not find Strategic Assets in the FAQ at all.

**yakface**

megatrons2nd wrote:How does the strategic assets:

Major Possession and Null Field Generator interact?

My interpretation is that the Independent Character models in the area of effect would not be eligible to be possessed.

I could not find Strategic Assets in the FAQ at all.

Here's a repost of my answer to a similar question from earlier in the thread:

yakface wrote:
Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:Does the INAT FAQ plan on covering expansions such as Apocalypse or Planetstrike and if not, is there a similar source that does?

Well, we covered the Apocalypse *unit* rules in the INAT appendix, but there are no plans to try to FAQ the rest of the Apocalypse rules (formations, stratagems, etc), Planetstrike or Cities of Death.

There are a few reasons for this:

1) Apocalypse and Planetstrike rules tend not to be used in tournaments as they aren't the most finely balanced of rules, and the INAT is a tournament FAQ.

2) Apocalypse in particular allows you to take any combination of units from any codex together in your army. The sheer amount of crazy combination that can be created this way makes the idea of trying to FAQ all these potential issues seem ludicrous.

3) Both Apocalypse and Planetstrike are designed as more of a 'friendly' game experience in that players need to be willing to get together more and decide on what types of rules they want to allow and disallow. Because of this, there is much less need to have some sort of unofficial FAQ running around giving guidelines on how to play. In other words, you're not going to tend to play Planetstrike and Apocalypse games against a stranger in a more 'serious' point of view where you argue about rules (as there is too much to argue about). Instead, since you already have to come to a consensus on how you're going to choose to play these games with your opponent, it makes sense that you can also hammer out rules issues that crop up in the game itself without the need of an unofficial FAQ.

4) While Cities of Death could definitely be used in a tournament style game more than the other two probably could, the fact is, with the release of 5th editions building rules, there are already the tools in place within the basic framework of the rulebook to allow games to be played in heavy urban terrain without the additional Cityfight rules.

So while it might be nice to have a FAQ for these supplements, it is already a time consuming enough task just dealing with the codices and the IA/Apoc units...I don't think I have it in me to try to cover all the expansions as well...and since I don't know of any tournaments that use them, I'm not really sure what the point would be!

Of course, if you know of a tournament that does use these expansions, let me know.

**Excalus**

Simply put, can models embarked in an open-topped transport vehicle fire if the vehicle moved at cruising speed? Does 'fast' make a difference there? On the same token, if a unit is embarked in a transport and deep-strikes, can the embarked unit fire even though the deep-striking unit moved at 'cruising speed'?

**MasterSlowPoke**

No to all.

**yakface**

Excalus wrote:Simply put, can models embarked in an open-topped transport vehicle fire if the vehicle moved at cruising speed? Does 'fast' make a difference there? On the same token, if a unit is embarked in a transport and deep-strikes, can the embarked unit fire even though the deep-striking unit moved at 'cruising speed'?

Those are all pretty clearly covered in the rules (no to all), so I'm curious as to why you believe this needs to be included in the INAT FAQ?

**Daemon-Archon Ren**

Can a Chaos Spawn model (or squig for that matter!) be generated by a succussful casting (and 'failed' characteristic test roll) of Gift of Chaos or Boon of Mutation, even though the effects of the spell (being removed from play) are "ignored"?

Can you take Vect +9 Harlequins in The Dias of Destruction at the beginning of the game?

How does a Shadowseer's ability (Veil of Tears) work when in a transport?

**Cowboykenny**

The questions pertain to the Tyranid Codex

1. Do Tyrant guard a. count as a kill point along with the Hive Tyrant or by themselves and b. when deploying in Dawn of War deployment do the Tyrant Guard count as a "second" HQ when deployed with the Hive Tyrant or may I deploy the unit and two troops?

2. I've seen this in the INAT FAQ but I just want to know why it is the way it is. Shadow in the Warp does not affect Psykers in transports, so why do psykers in transports get to cast powers and nullify the enemy's while inside a transport. Heck, Runes of Warding still works even if the Farseer is still in reserve. I would just like some clarification.

3. Is Doom's soul sucking ability allowed cover saves only for balance sake or is it left over from the "targeting inside transports" debacle?

**Excalus**

yakface wrote:
Excalus wrote:Simply put, can models embarked in an open-topped transport vehicle fire if the vehicle moved at cruising speed? Does 'fast' make a difference there? On the same token, if a unit is embarked in a transport and deep-strikes, can the embarked unit fire even though the deep-striking unit moved at 'cruising speed'?

Those are all pretty clearly covered in the rules (no to all), so I'm curious as to why you believe this needs to be included in the INAT FAQ?

I'm just looking to definitively close the argument before it begins, since there is the special case of the new DE with open-topped fast skimmers.
The first argument is that the rule that embarked models cannot fire if the vehicle is moving at cruising speed is under the 'fire points' rule. The argument goes that the open-topped rule says that there are no fire points, ergo that rule doesn't apply.
I've also heard an argument for fast vehicles that since "fast vehicles that move at cruising speed may fire a single weapon (plus all defensive weapons just like other types of vehicle moving at combat speed)" (pg70) for the purposes of shooting out, the passengers count as combat speed as well. Since the vehicle shooting counts as combat speed, then the passengers shooting count that as combat speed too.
The third one is that under the FAQ, models that deep strike embarked in a transport count as having deep-struck themselves. As such, they should be able to shoot (while still embarked) after a deep strike. This is in direct opposition to the generally understood 'can't shoot out if vehicle moved at cruising speed' rule since Deep-striking vehicles count as having moved at cruising speed. However, since both units count as deep-striking, the deep strike rule overrules the embarked shooting rule.

Just think that it would be best to absolutely clarify these things ahead of time. Thanks for the patience

**don_mondo**

◊BT.23A.02 – Q: Do Templar Infantry units that
have „[gone] to ground‟ still take Morale Checks if
they suffer 25% casualties in the shooting phase?
A: Yes (they just don‟t automatically take the check when
suffering any casualties), and if passed they make a
consolidation move per the „Rigtheous Zeal‟ rules. Note that
making this consolidation move does indeed remove their
„[gone] to ground‟ status [clarification].
Ref: CD.75B.02, CSM.88E.02, RB.24A.04

How does GtG remove the requirement for them to test if they take one or more casualties?

**yakface**

don_mondo wrote:◊BT.23A.02 – Q: Do Templar Infantry units that
have „[gone] to ground‟ still take Morale Checks if
they suffer 25% casualties in the shooting phase?
A: Yes (they just don‟t automatically take the check when
suffering any casualties), and if passed they make a
consolidation move per the „Rigtheous Zeal‟ rules. Note that
making this consolidation move does indeed remove their
„[gone] to ground‟ status [clarification].
Ref: CD.75B.02, CSM.88E.02, RB.24A.04

How does GtG remove the requirement for them to test if they take one or more casualties?

Check out the errata section of GW's Black Templar FAQ. It changes 'pinning' to 'gone to ground' for that rule. So BT units that have gone to ground no longer take morale checks when they suffer a single casualty.

**don_mondo**

yakface wrote:How does GtG remove the requirement for them to test if they take one or more casualties?

Check out the errata section of GW's Black Templar FAQ. It changes 'pinning' to 'gone to ground' for that rule. So BT units that have gone to ground no longer take morale checks when they suffer a single casualty.

**Wildstorm**

I apologize in advance if this has been asked already… I looked but couldn’t find a ruling or FAQ.

Per the BRB, Rage forces a unit to move towards the closest enemy. The key here is that it does not specifically say “all models in the unit” but rather just says unit.

This could be interpreted to mean that the closest model to an enemy must move full out towards that enemy, but the rest of the unit just has to maintain coherency with that first model that moved. Technically, yes, the entire unit is closer to the nearest enemy because that first model moved towards it, but having the majority of the unit move however you want it to seems like a tactical loophole.

The alternative is to have every model of the unit try to move as fast and as far as possible towards the nearest enemy. This would lead to the unit bunching up during the movement phase as they try to climb over each other to get to the closest target.

So which is it?

**kirsanth**

Is the idea of the following ruling specific to BA?

BA.GEN.03 – Q: Do Mephiston, The Sangiunor and
Death Company Tycho count as „characters‟ for rules
and mission objectives that refer to „characters‟?
A: As strange as it may seem, these models are not
„characters‟ as defined in the rules, but rather just HQ units
comprised of a single model [RAW].

If not how does that reconcile with page 85 of the Tyranid codex, Legendary Creatures?
If I make my Swarmlord part of a unique Hive Fleet it is a special character, but not if I do not?
Editing in a bit I missed: The Tyranid FAQ specifically names the Unique models as Special Characters as well in the first question of the third page.

Also, how does that relate to the rules for Unique characters in the main rulebook, page 49?
There are many Unique ~~characters~~ choices that are apparently not characters so these rules would not apply?

Editing to add:
To put this another way, that issue is not covered for all Unique 'characters'.
Nor does the answer cover all the problems (although to be fair, I am not sure any do, really).

**puma713**

Does a 'Removed From Play' spell/ability trigger the Tervigon's Brood Progenitor effect?

Discussion started here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/357076.page

Basically, the question is, does 'Removed From Play' = Slain?

**hyno111**

The Official Tau Empire FAQ have been updated,many of the Q&As are included.It also bring some changes like gun drones are not counted as passengers now.
My Questions:
Would Tempest's Wrath affects Jump Infantry that choose to move as Infantry?
Can Jet Pack units choose to move like Infantry units?Can they get the 6'' extra move in the assault phase then?
Do Gun Drones counted for regrouping purposes?

**Turbo_MMX**

Got one for the Space marine codex that came up at a recent tournament.

If you exchainge the Iron Clad Dreadnaughts Seismic hammer for a Chainfist do you still get the +1 attack for 2 close combat weapons on a Walker?

Ive seen this discussed on a couple of threads but without any truely definative answer given. Here is the link to the Dakka thead

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/261316.page#1050263

**puma713**

In light of the new ruling on grenades in the GK FAQ:

Games Workshop wrote:Q: Does the entire unit need to be equipped with rad,
psyk-out and/or psychotroke grenades for their effects
to work or is just one model being equiped with them
enough? (p60)
A: One model in a unit is enough.

If one model in a unit (IC) has defensive grenades, does the whole unit benefit? Ongoing conversation here.

And poll here.

**Grimgob**

Red Paint Job on Ork vehicle. If an Ork vehicle with the red paint job upgrade goes 7 inches do enemy troops hit the vehicle on 4+ or a 6+ in CC? the rules as written could go either way and when I asked most people play a 6+. When I played it this way at a tournament an opponant got all bent out of shape about it and I would like a diffinitive answer as I dont care one way or the other (just not sure how to play it).

**yakface**

Just a brief bump of the thread to make it clear that v5.0 of the INAT has now been released. Please click on the INAT FAQ link at the top of the page to always find the most current version of the INAT FAQ.

Grimgob wrote:Red Paint Job on Ork vehicle. If an Ork vehicle with the red paint job upgrade goes 7 inches do enemy troops hit the vehicle on 4+ or a 6+ in CC? the rules as written could go either way and when I asked most people play a 6+. When I played it this way at a tournament an opponant got all bent out of shape about it and I would like a diffinitive answer as I dont care one way or the other (just not sure how to play it).

Grimgob,

Sorry I wasn't able to get this question into this latest release as we were already pretty late in the game of getting it done by the time you posted this, but I'll be sure to get it in the next update.

Thanks for all the great submissions everyone!

**Grimgob**

Was there any thought on this or did it not even get to the discussion table yet?

**Kingsley**

I'd like to see an INAT ruling on the issue from this thread, as the thread basically started repeating itself and the question seriously affects list composition.

**MasterSlowPoke**

BA.38D.05 and GK.37C.05 have contradicting answers.

**yakface**

invisiblade wrote:BTW, in the Grey Knights section, for the Stormraven, the special deep strike disembark is supposed to be "Shadow Skies", but it's a direct CP from BA with 'Skies of Blood'. Just being nit picky, but thought you ought to know.

MasterSlowPoke wrote: BA.38D.05 and GK.37C.05 have contradicting answers.

Thanks so much! Someone else already pointed out the contradictory rulings on those two...that was a simple error on my part. The 'correct' ruling is the one in the Blood Angels section. We will be putting out a tiny update (v5.0.1) within the next week that will correct that issue and fix the 'Shadow Skies' wording as well.

Anytime you can spot errors like that it is a huge help when you let me know ASAP.

Thanks again.