AdeptiCon Releases 40K Rules FAQ 1.0!

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.

**skyth**

So proven wrong, Mauleed runs away with his tail between his legs instead of admitting he was wrong. How nice.

**Aunshiva**

Back to the original topic:

For Tau: The ruling on Gun Drones for Piranha squadrons is possibly incorrect. pg 31 of Tau Empires states that they all have to disembark at the same time, forming one large squadron. If you are refuting that, it might be clearer if you had "Do all gundrones in a piranha squadron disembark at once, or just all drones from each vehicle disembark when necessary?"

Also: Do Sniper Drone teams count as Tau or Drones for the purpose of "The Price of Failure?" Though made up largely of drones, the unit is controlled by a Firewarrior.

I had a narthecium question, but it was actually answered. Kudos. The answer means, however, that I can use Nartheciums on Plasma. Woohoo! Maybe I should take the Brotherhood of Steel to Chi-town!

**Centurian99**

Ed...if you want to take this to e-mail, I'm okay with that...you've got my e-mail for that.

My main thought is this, though:
As far as I can see, we've got two contradictory rules here. One is that you can't move through your own models. The other is the Deep Strike rules, which say to place them in a certain way. The big question is what is considered "movement." It's not a defined game term. But it seems pretty clear to me that if you do anything in the movement phase, it counts as movement. That's why vehicles that pivot do so in the shooting phase.

**stonefox**

Agreed with skyth. The procedure for DS goes as follows:
1. place model on tabletop with restrictive parameters followed
2. roll scatter die
3. move model.

However, a clear conclusion cannot be assumed. "If a scatter occurs, roll 2d6" to see how far the model scatters." There is no definition for what a "scatter" is. The only indication to movement is at the end of the DS rule, but I do not know if it would be a logical fallacy of some sort to assume that implication of movement is included.

**TheGrog**

I see it as one of the non-addressed grey areas. While Ed's case is rather ... silly, destroying DS units due to friendly models is equally unsupported in the rules. Irrelevant attacks or any of the rest of the flames here don't make the case for either side any better.

I am really curious as to why you are ceasing 40k. IK just a better gaming universe?

**muwhe**

destroying DS units due to friendly models is equally unsupported in the rules.

I suppose this should be moved to YMDC... but the above is not exactly a true statement....

It's pretty clearly supported by the rules ..

Before the change in deep strike rules in 4th. You had the rather complicated “hard” and “soft” template rules for deep striking and demon summoning. You commonly had part of the template clipping an enemy model making the template hard and covering some already existing friendly models on the table. You did not get to stack models on already existing friendly models then .. So if half the template was already covered by an existing friendly squad and part of the template touched an enemy model you lost what you physically could not fit/place on the template more than 1" away from the enemy. You did not get to stack them on top of one another. If the template was soft .. you could expand beyond the boundry of the template if need be to fit everything but they did not allow you to stack.

The template stuff is still used in 4th for demon summoning purposes and still in effect.

**TheGrog**

Demon Summoning has little to do with Deep Strike. Different rules, cirumstancial evidence. Same with relying on old rules sets, since there is a new rule in 4th it superceedes previous core rules at least, and since I am not aware of any codex rules that make somebody's deep strike mechanics different from anybody else's, the current DS rule is all there is as far as an ironclad logic base.

The 4th DS rules never mention friendly models. Ever. It does say that DS models are destroyed by impassible terrain, board edges, and enemy models. Friendly models are not board edges nor enemy models, so they do not destroy DSing models on those counts. You might choose to consider them 'impassable terrain' based on the idea that impassable terrain is simply an area of the board you cannot enter unless some other rule says so. Since you cannot enter friendly models, they count. That's a rather weak argument though.

Ed's argument functions (to me) around the idea that the DS rules never mention friendly models, so friendly models simply 'don't count' until you are done with the DS mechanic. You can't move on top of a friendly model, but you didn't 'move' there. You DS'ed there, and that's upported by the mention of DS'ed units not moving and 'counting as' having moved. Also a rather weak argument.

A 3rd option would be to place around friendly models while still holding to the enemy models, impassable, board edge destruction rules. However, then you run afowl of the 'complete circle' requirment.

Furthermore, what happens if you can't place the first, original model due to friendly units?

Others fall back on old rules, but they carry little relevance.

On the other hand, right or wrong is irrelevant. These are Adepticon rules, and nothing really prevents them from adjusting rules to suit. People who don't like them won't go, and I see nothing wrong with it so long as everybody is given a chance to know the changes early.

**muwhe**

You are missing the point of my comments. It is not about quoting old rules it is about supporting an instance that is still in effect of friendly models displacing inbound “non-moving” models ( Last time I checked demon summoning was not considered movement either under his definition ) with the result ending in that models destruction.

The above meets Mauleed’s request “Before I do that, find me a rule that says you can't place models on top of each other.”

**Inquisitor_Malice**

Posted By TheGrog on 09/28/2006 10:33 AM
Demon Summoning has little to do with Deep Strike. Different rules, cirumstancial evidence. Same with relying on old rules sets, since there is a new rule in 4th it superceedes previous core rules at least, and since I am not aware of any codex rules that make somebody's deep strike mechanics different from anybody else's, the current DS rule is all there is as far as an ironclad logic base.

The 4th DS rules never mention friendly models. Ever. It does say that DS models are destroyed by impassible terrain, board edges, and enemy models. Friendly models are not board edges nor enemy models, so they do not destroy DSing models on those counts. You might choose to consider them 'impassable terrain' based on the idea that impassable terrain is simply an area of the board you cannot enter unless some other rule says so. Since you cannot enter friendly models, they count. That's a rather weak argument though.

Ed's argument functions (to me) around the idea that the DS rules never mention friendly models, so friendly models simply 'don't count' until you are done with the DS mechanic. You can't move on top of a friendly model, but you didn't 'move' there. You DS'ed there, and that's upported by the mention of DS'ed units not moving and 'counting as' having moved. Also a rather weak argument.

A 3rd option would be to place around friendly models while still holding to the enemy models, impassable, board edge destruction rules. However, then you run afowl of the 'complete circle' requirment.

Furthermore, what happens if you can't place the first, original model due to friendly units?

Others fall back on old rules, but they carry little relevance.

On the other hand, right or wrong is irrelevant. These are Adepticon rules, and nothing really prevents them from adjusting rules to suit. People who don't like them won't go, and I see nothing wrong with it so long as everybody is given a chance to know the changes early.

1st. If you start discounting 'Count As' as a basis for relationships in 40K, then a lot of special rules for units start to fall apart. (ie: C'tan 'Count As' having frag grenades, Psycannon Bolts - A bolt weapon with this upgrade 'Counts As' AP4, Brazier of Holy Fire 'Counts As' a close combat weapon). There are additional examples all through out the codices. So Deepstriking is considered movement with the phrase 'Counts as having moved'. Otherwise, you discount all the other 'Counts as' relationships in 40K. So this is a strong part of the overall argument, not a weak one.

Step 1: Based on the above we have established that deepstriking is a form of movement. It is a subset of the overall movement category.

2nd. Page 15 - A model may not move into/through the space occupied by a friendly model or through a gap between friendly models smaller than its own base size.

Step 2: Deepstriking = a form of movement & Models may not move into space occupied by a friendly model.

3rd. Page 84 - All Deep Striking Models are arranged around the first model. Models must be placed in base contact with the original model in a circle around it. When the first circle is complete, a further circle should be placed with each model touching the circle inside it.

Step 3: This is where the entire rules set has a problem. The rest of the deepstriking rules do not mention friendly models. Yet we are in an area where you can't follow the 2nd and 3rd criteria listed above. This is an impass. Without looking at any additional information, neither side is correct on how to appropriately handle this.

However, the key beyond this information is other scenarios that set the precedent for where you can not place models on the board. The precedent in this case is found on page 84 "If you are unable to complete a circle without any of them coming within 1" of the enemy, entering impassable terrain or going off-table, the surplus models are destroyed.

1. Unable to complete the circle, which the friendly models scenario is similar to the page 84 rule list above.

2. The surplus models are destroyed.

With the precedent for the three scenarios - A) 1" of the enemy, B) entering impassable terrain, or C) going off-table, following steps 1, 2, and 3 above, the application of destroying the friendly forces is consistent with other similar scenarios that set precedent. This is a perfect application of precendent, which is how law is consistently applied.

**TheGrog**

All forms of counts as arguments are weak except those explicit in the book. They work under the assumption that because A has a definition, and B either meets some part of that definition or meets all of that definiton plus some, that B counts as A and can be used equally in cases where A matters.

Both the 'models are destroyed because friendly models count as impassable terrain' and the 'deep strike counts as movement, thus you cannot complete circles' are weak because it is an implied definitional relationship. The 'DS unit counts as having moved' is explicit in the text, but could easily have meant ' the DS unit didn't move, but it counts as moving to limit it's options' as much as 'DS counts as the units movement'.

For further circumstancial evidence, DS is not in the movement chapter nor listed under a subsection that has anything to do with movement. They 'enter play', which sounds suspiciously like deployment. I'll leave it here, since I don't see an argument more concrete than yours and I'm still not convinced. DS = movement isn't compelling to me. Just another grey area, and the idea that your own troops limit deep strike rather annoys me. After all, what about teleport homers?

**CaptKaruthors**

Answer me this then. If people are asserting DS isn't considered movement, then why does it state they count as having moved? TheGrog thinks that "entry play" sounds like deployment, so if that is true, then why would GW go to the lengths of stating they count as having moved? I'm with the others on this one. I think that stacking models is silly and isn't supported in the rules anywhere. I also think that there IS enough precedence to have that kind of ruling that the Adepticon Council made. Like it or not that's how it is if you are playing at Adepticon. As stated by me earlier, I really haven't seen an uproar over this by the people that play in that event and in IMHO, doesn't break the game. I took several DS units last year and had no problems at all. TheGrog: Teleport homers wouldn't matter much since the DSing unit is placed within 6" of the model carrying it. depending on where that model is that is a rather large area. There is a Lysander wing player in my area that has his entire army DSing. He has no problems. If you have that many units then you will probably need multiple homers to get maximum coverage to place units.

Capt K

**Toreador**

As far as I can find there is no precedence for moving friendly models out of the way when needed. You have to fall back to the deepstriking rules when it is contradictory. Seeing as how nothing supports stacking the units, existing in the same space, or moving friendly models out of the way then models that cannot be placed should be destroyed.

**Frazzled**

I believe a new FAQ has just popped up:

What happens if deepstriking troops have no choice but to land on top of friendly models?

As two models cannot be placed on top of one another, friendly models count as impassible terrain for purposes of deep striking
http://uk.games-workshop.com/news/errata/assets/40k/40KRuleBookFAQ.pdf

**Inquisitor_Malice**

Ahhhh - Precedent is so nice. Now that is what I call Justification.

**Green Bloater**

@jfrazell - Thanks!

**thehod**

Looks like you cant deepstrike into friendly units now. Seeing the updated 40K FAQ now that friendly units are Impassable terrain.

If you dont like it just dont play the game or play with your own house rules that your gaming group can agree on. Remember you can always mutually agree with players to settle particular issues or just plain use the dice as the judge.

This is just a game

**TheGrog**

For a great deal of people, it's not just a game. It's a hobby, which implies far more time/money/emotional/effort investment. For others, it's a competitive sport.

The 'counts as having moved' could have been meant to limit DS actions in the rest of the turn. The FAQ makes it clear what they want, but I do find it interesting that they decided to count friendly models as impassable terrain rather than going with the circle-breaking argument presented so well earlier.