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.

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

A model only counts as being in cover "When any part of the target model's body (as defined on page 16) is obscured from the point of view of the firer" (page 21). So rules as written in this case seem to imply that you can only take cover saves from shooting attacks. The Doom of Malantai's power is not a shooting attack, and does not require line of sight. Nor is it a psychic power, so the new general FAQ's rulings also don't apply. On the other hand, other sources of damage that aren't shooting attacks, such as Perils of the Warp, take time to specify that you cannot take cover saves against them.

So fair enough, based on page 66, and the general ambiguity of cover saves, the INAT ruling makes for a fair compromise. I concede the point and withdraw my previous objections.

Some questions:

A) Why can't Zarakynel be taken with CSM? She specifically mentions it in her rules, it works perfectly fine. Later, someone asked how she would be taken for a CCD army, and that was explained too. It seems very, VERY clear that she can be used by both armies just fine. To disallow this seems completely unnecessary.

B) The unit of horrors created by the Tzeentch daemon lord says they act like a summoned unit. You seem to think this means they can't shoot. Why not?

Also, it depends. For a CSM army, a unit of summoned daemons can't move, but most definitely can assault. For CCD, they can't assault, but they can still shoot just fine.

C) Something not addressed in this FAQ, as far as I could tell, is that Gargantuan Creatures are immune to psychic powers without a S value, even friendly ones. TECHNICALLY, this means Zarakynel couldn't even use Warp Time on herself, which makes it utterly pointless. How should it be played, then?

D) Transfixing Gaze can be reflected? It's no longer a psychic power, it's just an ability Mephiston has.

Spellbound wrote:Some questions:

A) Why can't Zarakynel be taken with CSM? She specifically mentions it in her rules, it works perfectly fine. Later, someone asked how she would be taken for a CCD army, and that was explained too. It seems very, VERY clear that she can be used by both armies just fine. To disallow this seems completely unnecessary.

The updated list of all units in the back of Imperial Armor Apocalypse 2 for all armies now lists the Daemon Lords as Chaos Daemon units only. This backs up what was written in the forward of Imperial Armor volume 7 where the author basically said that when they made the models for the Daemon Lords they really didn't have a good fit for an army for them, so they put them in the CSM armies because that's all they had at the time.

However, with the release of the CD army, they realized this was actually the fit for these Gargantuan Daemons, which is why their reprinted rules in IA7 & and the Tzeentch Lord in IAA2 all only mention them now being taken Chaos Daemon armies.

B) The unit of horrors created by the Tzeentch daemon lord says they act like a summoned unit. You seem to think this means they can't shoot. Why not?

Also, it depends. For a CSM army, a unit of summoned daemons can't move, but most definitely can assault. For CCD, they can't assault, but they can still shoot just fine.

His rule specifically says they cannot shoot the turn they are summoned.

C) Something not addressed in this FAQ, as far as I could tell, is that Gargantuan Creatures are immune to psychic powers without a S value, even friendly ones. TECHNICALLY, this means Zarakynel couldn't even use Warp Time on herself, which makes it utterly pointless. How should it be played, then?

For now, the RAW are unfortunately clear...Warp Time cannot benefit the Daemon Lord itself, but to be honest those rules are all a mess since they reference the CSM codex even though the newer Tzeentch Daemon Lord now references the Chaos Daemon codex. They really need to have their rules updated to come only from the CD codex.

D) Transfixing Gaze can be reflected? It's no longer a psychic power, it's just an ability Mephiston has.

As noted right at the top of the INAT FAQ (and appendix), the FAQ only covers codices released at the time the FAQ is released. The Blood Angels codex throughout the FAQ still refer to the PDF army list, where transfixing gaze is most certainly a psychic power.

yakface wrote:For now, the RAW are unfortunately clear...Warp Time cannot benefit the Daemon Lord itself, but to be honest those rules are all a mess since they reference the CSM codex even though the newer Tzeentch Daemon Lord now references the Chaos Daemon codex. They really need to have their rules updated to come only from the CD codex.

You've never been shy about changing rules before in the INAT - why stop now?

H.B.M.C. wrote:

yakface wrote:For now, the RAW are unfortunately clear...Warp Time cannot benefit the Daemon Lord itself, but to be honest those rules are all a mess since they reference the CSM codex even though the newer Tzeentch Daemon Lord now references the Chaos Daemon codex. They really need to have their rules updated to come only from the CD codex.

You've never been shy about changing rules before in the INAT - why stop now?

While we do make rules changes, we only do it when we think its either really, really necessary or follows the way most people already play the game.

In the case of the Slaanesh & Nurgle Daemon Lords there is no easy quick fix that solves all their issues. Do you say they use the psychic powers as listed in the CSM codex but just don't require them to make a psychic test to use them (and don't count them as psychic powers anymore) like in the CD codex? Or do you try to swap out their abilities for similar ones in the CD codex (Lash for Pavane, for example)?

Either way, you're making a pretty big change in how the Daemon Lord actually functions on the battlefield which is pretty dicey.

Another option is just to allow 'Warptime' to affect the Daemon Lord, which would be the simplest and probably most widely accepted way to change the rules, and we may well do that. This particular issue (Warptime) was not something that I spotted, so I'll definitely try to put it to a vote and see what everyone else on the council thinks about it for the next update.

yakface wrote:Another option is just to allow 'Warptime' to affect the Daemon Lord, which would be the simplest and probably most widely accepted way to change the rules, and we may well do that.

I'd say that would be the best way to handle the situation because it both makes total sense from a logical and a common sense perspective and it'll annoy Gwar!'s RAW crowd to no end.

While you're at it, vote on whether it can be used for CSM armies, RAW be damned. I see no reason why it can't, unless one likes the reasoning of "well, I mean....everything for the CSM codex is plain and generic, so they shouldn't get god-specific daemon lords".

RAW might say they're listed as for the CD codex. RAW also includes summoning rules, though.

Question re GW FAQs.

Is there a set INAT FAQ council rule that says the GW FAQ rule is final and overrules previous INAT FAQs?

How soon after a GW FAQ does it replace something in the INAT FAQ (if different?).

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Question re GW FAQs.

Is there a set INAT FAQ council rule that says the GW FAQ rule is final and overrules previous INAT FAQs?

How soon after a GW FAQ does it replace something in the INAT FAQ (if different?).

At the very top of the INAT FAQ it says:

Please be aware that this document only clarifies codexes that are published prior to the above date.

In the case that any official GW FAQs are released or updated after the above publication date, and they contain rulings which contradict those found in this document, the official GW ruling obviously takes precedence.

Does this statement cover your question?

A clarification came up to the rules last night I thought might be a good one to consider for the INAT faq.

Page 22: firing through other units

".. or through the gaps between models in an intervening unit, ..."

should have been written by GW as

".. or through the gaps between models in coherency in an intervening unit, ..."

imagine a large crescent moon of grots where the points are towards the opponent. Per the RAW the opponent is firing between models.

have a good day, and thanks again for such a wonderful FAQ (even the parts I dislike).

yakface wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Question re GW FAQs.

Is there a set INAT FAQ council rule that says the GW FAQ rule is final and overrules previous INAT FAQs?

How soon after a GW FAQ does it replace something in the INAT FAQ (if different?).

At the very top of the INAT FAQ it says:

Please be aware that this document only clarifies codexes that are published prior to the above date.

In the case that any official GW FAQs are released or updated after the above publication date, and they contain rulings which contradict those found in this document, the official GW ruling obviously takes precedence.

Does this statement cover your question?

just wanted it 'from the Yak's mouth' so to speak, thanks.

Other parties are labouring under the notion that their FAQs should be regarded as better or more accurate than the GW one, which is, I think a contradiction. I just wanted your clarification on how you do it.

Thanks to you and the rest of the ruling council. The effort you put in is very much appreciated.

Thanks again for the INAT. Clears up many an argument before they get large at our store.

INAT 3.3 seems to be silent on the issue of SW psychic power Storm Caller affecting vehicles. Since the same power is basically in the BA codex, what is the Counsel's stance on this?

I only ask because every thread on it seems to get locked, but I do see both sides of the argument (RAW and the requirement of 'obscured,' and the wording of 'unit' affecting all). Will you guys address this in your BA faq portion?

synchronicity wrote:Thanks again for the INAT. Clears up many an argument before they get large at our store.

INAT 3.3 seems to be silent on the issue of SW psychic power Storm Caller affecting vehicles. Since the same power is basically in the BA codex, what is the Counsel's stance on this?

I only ask because every thread on it seems to get locked, but I do see both sides of the argument (RAW and the requirement of 'obscured,' and the wording of 'unit' affecting all). Will you guys address this in your BA faq portion?

You're the 2nd person to write to me about this, so perhaps I'll think about including the question in the Space Wolf section as well, but I really felt it is actually a basic question about how vehicles (and Monstrous Creatures too, for that matter) are able to get a cover save.

To that end, the rulings regarding this matter are in the vehicle and monstrous creature sections of the rulebook FAQ in the INAT (RB.62B.01 & RB.51B.01).

Basically we feel that the rules indicate that, yes, normally a vehicle or Monstrous Creature has to have 50% of the model (or armor facing) in order to get a cover save, but in the case of a special rule that grants the model a cover save, then this is not the case of the normal rules, but rather the specific situation overriding the normal rules.

So yes, vehicles get a cover save from Stormcaller and yes Monstrous Creatures get a cover save from a Venomthrope.

Couple of questions:

Can you give me your reasoning for "Weaken Resolve" being able to affect "Stubborn" units and Rites of Battle?
Its causing alot of contention at my LGS. I'd like to know how Weakan Resolve targeted at a unit, affects the commanders leadership for RoB and how lowering leadership is not negatively "modifying" it for the purposes of Stubborn morale tests..
The compromise we ended up with after deliberation was that Stubborn units would be unaffected for moral tests, bu tfor all other leadership purposes (pinning etc) would suffer the minus. As per reading RAW, it made the most sense. And for RoB, we found that it would not affect the commander as he was not the unit targeted, and the unit is using his leadership, not their own, so it would not be minus'd


2. Also a question came to me today from a customer who wanted to know that since Nurgle's Rot affects people in the same way as the Doom, does it Also affect people in vehicles? It is described as "every enemy within 6 inches takes hits". Also, I don't see how being out of LOS would stop you from being affected by Nurgles Rot.

thanks

Sergeant Horse wrote:Couple of questions:

Can you give me your reasoning for "Weaken Resolve" being able to affect "Stubborn" units and Rites of Battle?
Its causing alot of contention at my LGS. I'd like to know how Weakan Resolve targeted at a unit, affects the commanders leadership for RoB and how lowering leadership is not negatively "modifying" it for the purposes of Stubborn morale tests..
The compromise we ended up with after deliberation was that Stubborn units would be unaffected for moral tests, bu tfor all other leadership purposes (pinning etc) would suffer the minus. As per reading RAW, it made the most sense. And for RoB, we found that it would not affect the commander as he was not the unit targeted, and the unit is using his leadership, not their own, so it would not be minus'd

My groups had a big moan session about the Weaken Resolve ruling as well when that first came out.
I brought it up here a long time ago, but the thread got closed if I remember correctly. Im with you 100% on RoB and WR.
Also, related to that. RoB and the Death Leaper- for the new wording of RoB in the BA dex thats definitely the case, but if im not mistaken the old RoB rulling says "may use". I can't see any justification rules wise why everything would suddenly have to be taken at the reduced RoB Ld if it's an ability you can choose to use.