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.

Ghaz wrote:I see at least two questions you might want to add to the FAQ. First is whether or not you will be allowing Grey Knight Terminators to use True Grit and second is whether or not the Remnants special rule allows an Imperial Guard Platoon to go over five squads.

RB.74.01 Answers the Grey Knight question I believe.


I have never heard that remnants question before. Do you find that comes up often?

I hate to nitpick, but it's really starting to bother me. You spelled "Adepticon" wrong in the thread topic.

Heh, sorry about that. I was reaaallly tired at the time.

Nothing pops out at me as being suspect. But I still wanted to chime in and say congrats on putting together a fantastic document. Both the idea and the execution deserve to be lauded.

After looking over this FAQ extensively, I do believe a lot of work went into it. It is very complete and leaves virtually no stone unturned.

However, I do feel that a lot of what is in there is poor. Heaps of answers are changes as opposed to clarifications or RAW. To me this says that the authors took it upon themselves to change the rules of the game.

This is not too much of an issue in its self. The rules may or may not benefit the game overall. The troubling part is that it appears that many changes are made more based on feeling than logic, and perhaps for gain.

Now that statement may sound strange, but consider. The rules committee does not appear to be unbiased. I say this as members will be playing in the events. This alone gives them an advantage. Rules can be changed to suit there armies or play styles, and this will be a foreboding question on the backs of many gamers minds, especially if any such members win awards.

By having participants judge, the event becomes in question. Participants should not be on a project as important as the main FAQ.

So your proposing that they wrote a massive 88 page FAQ with the intent on modifying the rules to fit there army?

Since Yak forbids me from flaming you mercilessly, I would suggest you come up with some damn good examples that support your theory.

You want to disagree with some of the FAQ? Fine. State your concerns. But to suggest that the whole thing is some massive conspiracy to create small advantages for the writers is just ridiculous.

Concerned Gamer:

I appreciate your concern, but that's a pretty serious charge you've leveled at us (and me).

I do fully admit that I will be playing in at least one 40K tournament at Adepticon (the team tournie) and perhaps more. However, this FAQ is in use for all of the 40K tournaments throughout the weekend. That means if you wanted someone to write a FAQ and not gain any advantage you'd have to find around 5 people who are really passionate about 40K to the point where they know the rules and then they'd have to voluntarily not play in any of the 40K events the whole weekend.

I just don't think you will be likely to find those people at a FAN run tournament (where we are not getting paid). I would honestly say it took me roughly 300+ hours (if not more) to write and edit this FAQ. If you truly think that I did all of that with the express purpose of winning games at Adepticon (even subconsciously) then I tip my hat to you sir and say good day.

Also please remember that the council is made up of several people who are playing in differing tournaments with different armies. It would be pretty difficult for all of us to consensus about how to rule a particular rule to our own "advantage" since we would theoretically be striving for different goals.


As for the logic vs. reason claim of the rulings: I've said it before and I'll say it again. You CANNOT have a FAQ that is based solely on the RAW. If you did, the games, and therefore the tournament would be effectively unplayable.

So at some point in EVERY FAQ personal opinion and bias is used, period. With no exceptions. The only question is where and how you draw the line. In the case of this FAQ (as opposed to any I've ever seen) is that we've actually come out and admitted where we were changing the rules as opposed to just making a ruling as if we know what is right and what is wrong.

Concerned_Gamer wrote:After looking over this FAQ extensively, I do believe a lot of work went into it. It is very complete and leaves virtually no stone unturned.

However, I do feel that a lot of what is in there is poor. Heaps of answers are changes as opposed to clarifications or RAW. To me this says that the authors took it upon themselves to change the rules of the game.

This is not too much of an issue in its self. The rules may or may not benefit the game overall. The troubling part is that it appears that many changes are made more based on feeling than logic, and perhaps for gain.

Now that statement may sound strange, but consider. The rules committee does not appear to be unbiased. I say this as members will be playing in the events. This alone gives them an advantage. Rules can be changed to suit there armies or play styles, and this will be a foreboding question on the backs of many gamers minds, especially if any such members win awards.

By having participants judge, the event becomes in question. Participants should not be on a project as important as the main FAQ.

I second YakFace in saying that you would never get an FAQ of this scope from players who weren't passionate about the game, and they are exactly the kind of people who want to play at Adepticon. (Let's face it, GW have never done an FAQ anywhere as good as this one.)

Perhaps you could quantify the number of answers in terms of clarifications vs changes, and point out the changes that benefit specific armies. That would allow other players to make some objective assessment of the level of bias in the document.

Personally I doubt there is any. Leaving aside the question of the committee's honour, it is hard to see how they could make changes that only benefit themselves and not other players.

Kilkrazy wrote:
I second YakFace in saying that you would never get an FAQ of this scope from players who weren't passionate about the game, and they are exactly the kind of people who want to play at Adepticon. (Let's face it, GW have never done an FAQ anywhere as good as this one.)

I disagree!

GW could just pay people to do this.

Oh well.

malfred wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
I second YakFace in saying that you would never get an FAQ of this scope from players who weren't passionate about the game, and they are exactly the kind of people who want to play at Adepticon. (Let's face it, GW have never done an FAQ anywhere as good as this one.)

I disagree!

GW could just pay people to do this.

Oh well.

In theory that is true.

"Concerned_Gamer" what rules issues do you have specifically? I agree with the others above that this FAQ. It is written by a team of individuals who I know at times have some fairly contentious debates with rulings coming down to a 3-2 decision. I also know from personal experience with past rulings (for example at AdeptiCon) that some of judge's rulings have changed from the rulings that were made at the time of the call at previous events. They have proven to me and the Toledo group that they are more than willing to listen and adjust as appropriate. The development of this FAQ is not taken lightly by any of them and they hold to a high standard of honor and integrity when making a ruling.

If any FAQ team member drops from events to avoid this stigma, we all have lost and do not deserve to play in the event. This group is comprised of solid players with a high level of integrity and for me personally, any victory would be tainted in not having them play. I will personally drag them into the convention hall to play even if I have to treat them like Bernie (ref: Weekend at Bernie's for all of you youngins).

As far as RAW is concerned, I reiterate YAK - going completely by RAW destroys the game. For example: the unassaultable unit due to the 1" rule. Try playing for the final position in a major event and having a judge rule that you can't charge a unit with a character. Why - because a friendly unit behind is in base to base and the bases are 25 mm, which is 0.04" smaller then 1". That's pure RAW and also pure stupidity.

The example above is why having a comprehensive FAQ (that does not always go by RAW in all cases) is a great thing. Especially if it is out 2 1/2 months before the main event where everyone can view it.

Side note to all tournament organizers: Please consider adopting this document as a standard for your events. Even if it is in the short term until 5th edition. This will bring a level of consistency to rulings for everyone and allow for players to have more fun with knowing what rules to expect.

I read Concerned_Gamer's post and got the POINT of it not as an attack or accusation but as a valid observation.

If participants write what will be considered ruling judgements of how a tournament is conducted without universal acceptance of the changes made by ALL participants, there could be a legitimate appearance of bias by the other participants.

I certainly wouldn't accuse anyone of intending or manipulating the rules to thier specific advantage & I don't think Concerned_Gamer was exactly doing that either. If RAW is changed by an F.A.Q. for a tournament then in my opinion the organiser of the tournament is doing that specifically to guide the play of the tournament in a certain direction or perhaps away froma certain direction. Nothing is wrong with that.

What becomes suspect (in appearance) is when the guide for the direction of play in a tournament is written by participants in same said tournament without universal (or at least majority acceptance) of those changes.

I have some experience in tournament & campaign design and have found that asking all or a majority of the participants to approve of changes to basic RAW always works better than NOT asking first. No matter how well written, consistent or researched the changes may be.

I hope this can be seen as also NOT an attack on Yak or the others who produced the document, they have stated in there that rules changes are made and it is to be used universally for multiple weekend events & not a specific purpose only. I don't think they are tyring to get one over on anybody, I also don't believe that they could possibly get everyone's consensus on the F.A.Q. before playing with it...

May I suggest a questionaire for eachj participant to fill out where they may comment on the F.A.Q. and rulings? If you find a trend toward dislike or abuse of certain items you could then change or omit those for the next go round. Make the F.A.Q. a living document that players may invest in!

Concerned_Gamer wrote:After looking over this FAQ extensively, I do believe a lot of work went into it. It is very complete and leaves virtually no stone unturned.

However, I do feel that a lot of what is in there is poor. Heaps of answers are changes as opposed to clarifications or RAW. To me this says that the authors took it upon themselves to change the rules of the game.

This is not too much of an issue in its self. The rules may or may not benefit the game overall. The troubling part is that it appears that many changes are made more based on feeling than logic, and perhaps for gain.

Now that statement may sound strange, but consider. The rules committee does not appear to be unbiased. I say this as members will be playing in the events. This alone gives them an advantage. Rules can be changed to suit there armies or play styles, and this will be a foreboding question on the backs of many gamers minds, especially if any such members win awards.

By having participants judge, the event becomes in question. Participants should not be on a project as important as the main FAQ.

Concerned_Gamer,

The slogan on the top of the Adepticon.org Web-site reads... ++ FOR GAMERS, BY GAMERS ++. To the best of my knowledge, this has always been the slogan for Adepticon. Within that spirit, it is wholly right for event organizers to take the field of battle, and test their metal against some of the finest fields that can be assembled. As to your insinuation that the rules clarifications are written to specifically influence the outcome of the games more substantial evidence is needed.

First off, to suggest that people who spend hundreds if not thousands of volunteer hours, need to influence the rules so that they can win a plaque and a couple of box sets does not seem logical. Why not save hundreds of hours and spend $100 bucks?

Secondly, it is an act of passive aggressive cowardice to level an accusation of this magnitude under an anonymous account, without the weight of specific citations of unethical behavior. What rules clarifications benefit what member of the council? Who specifically are you accusing, what are they bringing to Adepticon, and how will they have an unfair advantage based on what is written in the FAQ?

Unfortunately, Character Assassination is very easy on the internet and those who do not have the talent or strength to prepare for war, plan for murder. Hence why a solider is often a hero, and an assassin is often a villain.

Regards,

Chris Mehrstedt <Rhysk>

Rockit wrote:What becomes suspect (in appearance) is when the guide for the direction of play in a tournament is written by participants in same said tournament without universal (or at least majority acceptance) of those changes.

I have some experience in tournament & campaign design and have found that asking all or a majority of the participants to approve of changes to basic RAW always works better than NOT asking first. No matter how well written, consistent or researched the changes may be.

There are many rulings made in this FAQ that were polled or gathered from a lot of different websites and groups on the internet. The FAQ team can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe dakkadakka, warseer and 40Kfightclub are examples of a few of these resources. So in essence, they are working towards a majority leveraging probably the best resource availalbe. While a tournament survey is a good idea - it can not match the feedback that you will receive from these internet resources.

Now for someone to say

Concerned_Gamer wrote:However, I do feel that a lot of what is in there is poor. Heaps of answers are changes as opposed to clarifications or RAW. To me this says that the authors took it upon themselves to change the rules of the game.

Well - that is an attack and shows that this person is not in touch with the overall complication with the rules issues involved. Sure there are going to be rulings that we all do not agree on. But to say "a lot of what is there is poor". Come on now - anyone that is considered to be a true tournament/game veteran knows this is not correct and should have a better understanding than this.

yakface wrote:
I have never heard that remnants question before. Do you find that comes up often?

I've had the discussion online a couple of times. Better safe than sorry and actually have it covered, IMHO.

Hardly anyone fields full squads, but personally I don't care if they have 1 command, 1 remnant, and 5 infantry squads. The remnant is gimped for heavy weapons, so at best you get a drop flamer. Not exactly so overpowering I'd cry at it.

Maybe if I actually saw it even once since the IG codex was released, anywhere...but I never have.

Even in 150-200 man guard armies.

After reading Concerned_Gamer's post I thought it was a bit over the top, but I believe Rockit has a point. I do not believe it is an attack but rather an observation. I know that I have been jaded by several tournaments were "suspicious" things have happened. I am not attacking or even trying to suggest that Yak, who has spent hundreds of hours on what can only be described as a passion of love, is trying to manipulate the system. I believe his intentions are altruistic. But the problem is that there can be doubt, especially with sore losers. Adepticon is for gamers by gamers as Rhysk said, who I had the pleasure of playing in last years Gladiator. And that said, the volunteers are there to better the game, but that can not be said of all participants. In last years Team event, 90 teams, with 4 players was 360 people, plus 150+ for both Gladiator and the RTT meant their over 600 participants, granted many the same. But of those, how many are win at all costs, and how many would be sore losers? I dont know what concerned_gamer's point was, but I do realize that he is right that someone can call foul warranted or not, and a simple accusation against Adepticon could be hurtful to the World's greatest gaming event. I have no solution to a problem that may have been revealed by the aforementioned poster. All I can say is that the gaming community must continue to make Adepticon better and better.

Inquisitor_Malice wrote:

Rockit wrote:What becomes suspect (in appearance) is when the guide for the direction of play in a tournament is written by participants in same said tournament without universal (or at least majority acceptance) of those changes.

I have some experience in tournament & campaign design and have found that asking all or a majority of the participants to approve of changes to basic RAW always works better than NOT asking first. No matter how well written, consistent or researched the changes may be.

There are many rulings made in this FAQ that were polled or gathered from a lot of different websites and groups on the internet. The FAQ team can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe dakkadakka, warseer and 40Kfightclub are examples of a few of these resources. So in essence, they are working towards a majority leveraging probably the best resource availalbe. While a tournament survey is a good idea - it can not match the feedback that you will receive from these internet resources.

I am all for this type of pre-thought and preparation of opinion heading into a task such as this. If that is indeed the foundation of the F.A.Q. and the tournament is better/more well recieved by the players for it then laudes are due.

I thought some of the reactions were a bit over the top, but when something strikes personally it is understandable... I just don't know that it help the forums.

I am certain the task took more than an individual & many hours of thought & probably playing to devise, its intent is on track I've no doubt.

I've gotta support the Adepticon Council Members who helped write the FAQ. As a former Adepticon council member/tournament judge, I have always had faith in their integrity and dedication to putting out a fair ruling, otherwise I would have never agreed to be a judge.

They've put a lot of effort into this so that players from all over the world can all be on the same page. Adepticon puts on a world class event, of incomparable quality, and I know it will be for years to come.

Dan B (DyneDenethor)

Concerned_Gamer wrote:
However, I do feel that a lot of what is in there is poor. Heaps of answers are changes as opposed to clarifications or RAW. To me this says that the authors took it upon themselves to change the rules of the game.

Having played in few tournaments and even run several myself. Having a common reference for rulings is a create comfort as there is some commonality to those rules that are fuzzy or just plain confusing. Yes, some of the rules have been changed and duly noted when and why that has occurred. Do I agree with all the rulings? No. Will I use it for the tournaments I rule. Yep. Bottom line, if you don't like the FAQ don't use it or play in the tournament that uses it.

It's always easier to criticize then to create. Instead of saying it's a piece of gak show where there are deficencies to help make it a better product.

I completely disagree with Concerned_Gamer and Rockit. There can be no room for doubt as to the intent of these rulings. You show up to play, have a rule go completely against the way you have played for years and then you can cry foul, but to do so when the rules are presented 2 1/2 months before is pure jealousy.

I have been a player and event organiser at Adepticon in the past and have also been an FAQ author for Adepticon in the past. Before this comprehensive tomb, we had a serious of random questions that were submitted to us from players. The questions were incomplete and during the course of a game I was called over many times to settle a rules 'interpretation' from two people, usually from different parts of the country, who played the rule in different ways. Invariably the ruling would severely hamper the situation for one of the players and in essence someone would be screwed.

Now we have an exhaustive exercise that is published months in advance to give everyone the opportunity to know how a judge will rule at these events. If anything this smacks of the highest form of integrity for how can any insider gain an advantage with the rules when everyone knows them.

I agree with Chris, Dan and Greg and in my coarse rules style I would say if you don't like the rules then don't show up. I would rather have 500 gamers and the biggest 40k weekend on the world than have 501 gamers and biggest 40k weekend in the world.

Exactly, dont like the rules dont show up. Hopefuly everyone follows this. Adepticon is the greatest event period.

Stelek wrote:Hardly anyone fields full squads, but personally I don't care if they have 1 command, 1 remnant, and 5 infantry squads. The remnant is gimped for heavy weapons, so at best you get a drop flamer. Not exactly so overpowering I'd cry at it.

Maybe if I actually saw it even once since the IG codex was released, anywhere...but I never have.

Even in 150-200 man guard armies.

It only takes one time to cause a problem thiugh. As I said, better safe than sorry. It's not like it's a major undertaking to add a ruling to the FAQ.

Allright I've gotten the time to look at more of the FAQ. Comments in italics.

I think my most important comment should be first:

Who are the donkey-caves you play with, council of FAQ? I mean, I've been going to tournaments a long time now all around the world and I've never even contemplated the kind of audacious bs rules lawyering that would require 90% of the answers in this FAQ--let alone actually seen anyone try such jackassery and not get kicked in the head. I'm not denigrating your work, but it seems like you've answered questions that only a bunch of donkey-caves would actually make you answer.

========================================================

So, I take it that Armored Company fielding Kroot Mercenaries are abusive and ruling the tournament scene? Rhetorical, this 'answer' amused me greatly. Is it clarified somewhere that Witchhunters that take Penitent Engines instead of Exorcists must be given maximum sportsmanship scores? Would seem to fit. Ok I'll stop picking on ya yak, unless there's something else really funny in here. I keep laughing at every sentence past page 31. lol

========================================================

BT.42A.01/BT.42B.01 – Q: If a Land Raider (or
Crusader) is transporting a mix of models in Power
Armor and Terminator Armor; how many models in
total can they carry?
A: The basic Land Raider may transport 10 models total,
the Crusader may carry 15. Models in Terminator armor
count as two models for this purpose. Other types of
models may also be transported and count as a single
model unless specified otherwise [rules change].

Interesting. How is this a rules change, exactly?

=======================================================

BA.06T.01 – Q: Can a Psychic Hood block a force
weapon’s instant death ability?
A: Yes [clarification].

So, you questioned me when I said no one reads the BBB force weapon description; but this is in the FAQ. Why would it need to be clarified if they read the BBB?

=======================================================

BA.26C.04 – Q: Do Inquisitorial Mystics allow free
shots at units arriving by Drop Pod?
A: Yes. The shooting is resolved after the Drop Pod lands
and the passengers disembark. Either the Drop Pod or
the disembarked unit may be the targeted, but not both
[rules change].

Why are you overriding the GW rules in this instance? Both are seperate units, and eligible to be shot at.

========================================================

CSM.25B.01 – Q: Do bike models with the Mark of
Tzeentch gain +1 to the invulnerable save
provided by turbo-boosting?
A: Yes [clarification].

Is this clarified for the stupid people? +1 to invulnerable saves needs to be clarified...why?

=========================================================

CSM.48.02 –Q: Does Kharn’s “Blessing of the
Blood God” ignore persistent psychic abilities (like
Psychic Scream or Veil of Tears)?
A: Yes. The psychic ability still functions, however Kharn
(and any unit he is joined to) simply ignores any and all
effects of the ability [rules change]. Units joined to Kharn
gain no additional protection against Force weapon
attacks directed at the unit instead of Kharn.
Ref: APOC.91D.02, DH.18C.01, ELD.28B.01, ELD.49A.

Sorry, why the meddling? IC abilities don't transfer to units, it's a guiding principle of the Warhammer system. Kharns ability to nullify crossing into his unit is bs all the way. By the way, if you'd kindly read the Sisters of Battle book and see how force weapons cannot kill them; I'd like to pass the ability on to my DW Librarian, oh and make the squad itself immune to psychic powers on a 5+. That's not in the FAQ, can you add it please? Meddle not.

=======================================================

DH.18C.01 – Q: Does a unit with a Null Rod ignore
persistent psychic abilities (like Psychic Scream or
Veil of Tears)?
A: Yes. The psychic ability still functions, however the
unit with the Null Rod simply ignores any and all effects
of the ability [RAW].

See, the Null Rod actually SAYS this. Kharn is not a NULL ROD for any 'unit' he chooses to join because the text that says this isn't there nor is it even remotely implied.

Don't want to be affected by Lash? Doom? Don't put Kharn in with a unit!

========================================================


CSM.54.03 – Q: Can Typhus use his Force weapon
ability on multiple models in the same assault
phase?
A: Yes, but note that the instant-kill ability is not tested
for until after all wounds inflicted by Typhus are allocated
to enemy models [RAW].

Sadly, this isn't RAW. RAW prohibits using a force weapon more than once. Typhus, unlike Mephiston, does not have this restriction loosened. He is simply allowed to use the force power *once* and still use either Wind or Rot. He is still a psyker limited to one power per turn with the exception he may also use his force weapon in addition to the other powers. That's the RAW for this rule.

=====================================================


DH.18E.01 – Q: Do Psycannons ignore cover
saves?
A: No, just invulnerable saves [rules change].

This is *NOT* a rules change. This is the RAW.

=====================================================

DH.28A.01 – Q: Does the Callidus Assassin’s
Neural Shredder count as a single or two-handed
weapon?
A: Single-handed [rules change].

It's a rules change? I guess you've never seen the model. Since it isn't a pistol weapon, why's it matter? Since she has no other pistol or CCW, why's it matter?

======================================================

DH.28B.01 – Q: Can the Eversor charge in the
Assault phase after firing its pistol?
A: Yes [rules change].

I'm confused--are people claiming 'Fast Shot' prevents the assassin from charging because it fired a pistol weapon twice using a special rule? Hilarious!!

======================================================

DA.35B.02 – Q: Can models disembarking from a
Drop Pod assault on the same turn?
A: No [rules change].

Sorry, this is a rules change? Who's assaulting out of Drop Pods?! lol are the Dark Angels players getting feisty?

=====================================================

ELD.24C.01 – Q: If an Eldar unit finishes its fall
back move within 12” of a friendly Avatar (or he
moves within 12” of a unit that is falling back)
does the unit immediately regroup?
A: Yes, the unit immediately regroups but does not make
a consolidation move [rules change].

Since this breaks the RAW, why are you doing this? The Avatar is not a Synapse Creature.

I don't see you giving this wonderful ability extension to other armies with similar abilities, so this just looks like meddling.

======================================================

ELD.34.01 -- Q: How are multiple shots from the
Exarch’s Tempest Launcher resolved?
A: resolve them as a multiple barrage (rulebook page
32), as if they were fired by separate weapons in the unit
[rules change].

This makes no sense. Multiple barrage is how it should be worked out, with the first template being the center point and the second scattering off it. Why add the extra line? It doesn't mean anything in the case of multiple barrages. Is this a clarification for stupid people?

======================================================

ELD.39.02 -- Q: Can either Heavy Weapon
crewman fire the weapon regardless of where
they are in the unit?
A: Yes, the position of the gun is immaterial. Either
crewman (but not both at the same time) may fire the
weapon [RAW]. However, both team members must
remain within 2” of each other during the game where
possible [rules change].

This isn't what Phil Kelly had in mind when he wrote the Codex. He doesn't play that way either. Why are you changing it?

======================================================

ELD.45B.01 -- Q: Do vibro cannons have to fire in a
straight line?
A: Yes [rules change].

Sigh. Who's the jackass asked this question? Who thinks they can get away with firing a vibro cannon in circles?

======================================================

ELD.45B.03 -- Q: Do individual vibro cannons add
their Strength to the battery even if they miss? Do
vehicles suffer a maximum of one glancing hit per
battery?
A: All cannons in the battery after the first add +1
Strength regardless of whether they hit or not [RAW].
Enemy vehicles suffer a maximum of one glancing hit per
battery [rules change].

The second line is RAW, not a rules change.

=======================================================

ELD.45B.04 -- Q: What happens if a vibro cannon
battery hits an enemy artillery unit?
A: The enemy artillery unit suffers D6 hits which are
randomized as normal. Any vibro cannon hit that strikes a
gun model destroys it [clarification].

Actually this is a rules change, not a clarification. An artillery unit that has a line drawn to an artillery piece would both lose that gun immediately AND suffer D6 hits. It qualifies for both, not just one. This rule you've written would only apply if you hit the gunners or draw through the unit without drawing LOS through a gun.

========================================================

ELD.46.01B/ELD.47.01B -- Q: What happens if
Inactive Wraithguard/Wraithlords have all of their
combatants killed by friendly models and the
enemy is unable to Pile Into them?
A: An Inactive unit that finds itself not locked in combat
after Pile-In moves are completed no longer counts as
being part of the combat [rules change].

This is RAW, actually, not a rules change.

=========================================================

ELD.49A.01 -- Q: Can Veil of Tears ever be nullified
or cancelled?
A: No. See RB.52.07.

See 'Kharn can nullify this. So can a Null Rod'. So which is it?

==========================================================

ELD.60A.01/ELD.60B.01/ELD.60C.01 -- Q: Can
Farseers, Warlocks and Autarchs Fleet while
mounted on a Jetbike, and in the case of an
Autarch, while equipped with a Jump Generator?
A: No in all cases [rules change].

So, why can't a Autarch fleet with the Jump Generator? I noticed you've left out Wings, but where Jetbikes cannot fleet (per Phil Kelly) there's no reason to restrict the Autarch with a Jump Generator from fleeting. With Wings or with a Jump Generator, he's still Jump Infantry but in your opinion one means no fleeting and the other does? Meddling again.

======================================================================

ELD.65A.01 -- Q: Do Shining Spears count as
having “Eldar” Jetbikes?
A: Yes [rules change].

Hilarious.

======================================================

IG.GEN.01C – Q: With a Heavy Weapon team, if
the model with the Heavy Weapon is killed does
the other guy pick it up?
A: If both models are mounted on the same base and
one is killed, mark the base to show one model is dead.
The other model discards his lasgun and takes over the
Heavy Weapon [rules change].
If the models are based separately, both team members
must remain within 2” of each other during the game
where possible. If the model with the Heavy Weapon is
killed, swap the position of the two models and remove
the team model with the lasgun as the casualty [rules
change]. This applies even against attacks that target a
specific model.

Well I'm not sure if this is a rules change, but this does give IG limited protection against torrent of fire. There are consequences for meddling.

=======================================================

IG.40.01 – Q: Do Sanctioned Psykers roll for their
psychic ability before or after being assigned to
their unit via the “Advisors” rule?
A: Before assigning them to their unit [clarification].

Hmmm, this is a rules change. I don't disagree with it, since Sanctioned Psykers are so horrible in the first place.

GW doesn't have 'pre-game' rolls anymore, if you haven't noticed. Everything is done either during or after deployment is complete.

=======================================================

IG.41B.01 – Q: Does a unit with an attached
Commissar use his Ld10 for Leadership tests even
if he hasn’t executed an Officer or Sergeant in the
unit?
A: His Ld value is not used. However, if the Commissar
executes the Officer or Sergeant (via the “Summary
Execution” special rule) he then takes command and the
unit uses his Ld while he lives [rules change].

This is RAW, not a rules change.

======================================================

IG.41B.03 – Q: If a Commissar uses Summary
Execution to prevent a unit from falling back out
of combat, is the unit then subject to ‘No Retreat!’
wounds if they are outnumbered?
A: Yes [clarification].

This is a rules change. Commissar led units are not fearless. If this rule is applied to IG, it should also be applied to inquisitor retinues and Tyranids under Synapse control.
Meddle not.

======================================================

IG.56F.02 – Q: If a unit has both the Jungle
Fighters and Mechanized doctrines can the unit
infiltrate if not deployed inside their Chimera?
A: No, the unit cannot infiltrate if it has a dedicated
transport [rules change].

This is RAW.

=======================================================

IG.56F.03 – Q: If a unit has both the Jungle
Fighters and Light Infantry doctrines can they
take both a Heavy Flamer and a Sniper rifle?
A: No [rules change].

This is also RAW. You cannot replace 1 heavy weapon with 2.

======================================================

IG.56F.01 – Q: Is the Jungle Fighters Heavy
Flamer upgrade available to any Guard Infantry
unit, or just regular Infantry Platoon squads?
A: Just to Infantry Platoon squads [rules change].

Why the meddling? It says Guard Infantry in the Codex.

======================================================

KM.02.04 – Q: Is the +1 Initiative bonus for ‘Fast
Reflexes’ counted when resolving a Sweeping
Advance?
A: Yes [rules change].

Dunno if I'd call this a rules change, all of the Kroot merc bonuses modify profile by RAW.

======================================================

NEC.15I.01 – Q: Can the Veil of Darkness be used
to teleport a Falling Back unit? What if the Lord
with the Veil is Falling Back himself?
A: Veil of Darkness may not be used by a Lord who is
Falling Back and may not be used to teleport a unit who
is Falling Back [rules change].

Swooping Hawks can skyleap when falling back. Isn't this the same effect, but really just ends up being classified as 'meddling'?

Sigh. I see alot of fething over of armies for no reason without also fething over other armies that do the exact same thing.

======================================================

NEC.20A.01 – Q: Does a Tomb Spyder w/ Scarab
Swarms count as a “Large Target” for Target
Priority? Do they have to start off the table in a
mission using the Escalation rule?
A: Yes and Yes [clarification].
Ref: RB.19.02, RB.84E.03

This is a clarification for the stupid people, isn't it? TS are MC. Seems silly to cover such minutiae without actually requiring players to read the rules. If they know what a large target is, why don't they know what a MC is?

=====================================================

NEC.20A.02 – Q: How does a Tomb Spyder with
Scarab Swarms work with the “Vulnerable to
Blasts/Templates” and “Small Targets” USRs?
A: Since they have differing Armor saves, all wounding
hits are allocated via the mixed armor rules. Only the
wounding hits allocated to the Scarab’s Armor type are
doubled for “Vulnerable to Blasts/Templates” and gain
the +1 cover save bonus for “Small Targets” [rules
change].

This isn't a rules change. This is RAW. Mixed armor and the torrent of fire rules covers this.

======================================================

NEC.21.02 – Q: If a Necron unit teleports through
the Monolith’s portal do the unit’s damaged
Necrons get to re-roll their We’ll Be Back rolls
even if they are no longer within 6” of a Necron
model of the same type?
A: All damaged Necron models associated (see:
NEC.13.01) with the unit that teleported through the
Monolith’s Portal may re-roll failed We’ll Be Back rolls
provided they were eligible to make (and failed) them at
the start of that turn. Necrons repaired in this way are
placed back in coherency with their unit emerging from
the portal [rules change].

Hmmm. Again, sounds like explaining RAW for noobs.

=============================================

NEC.30.01 – Q: Do Fearless units that Fall Back
due to the Deceiver’s “Deceive” special rule
automatically regroup?
A: No, they must regroup normally [RAW].

You're kidding with this bs, right? Fearless models suddenly become regular troops isn't bad enough, they stay that way? Meddling.

===========================================================

ORK.31A.01 – Q: Are saves allowed against the
wound caused by rolling a ‘1’ for the ‘Waaagh!’
fleet roll?
A: Armor and Invulnerable saves are allowed
[clarification].

Since no mention is made of cover saves, I'm assuming none are allowed? Not that the Codex says anything either way.

============================================================

You're killing me with this FAQ.

RB.12.01 – Q: Are more than 10 Attacks possible?
A: Yes, more then 10 Attacks are allowed [rules change].

And:

ORK.31B.01 – Q: Does an Ork Mob with more than
10 models count as having a Ld greater than 10?
A: No. 10 is the highest characteristic value possible
[RAW].

You can't say both in the same g-ddamn FAQ!

=======================================

ORK.48B.01 – Q: Can Deffkoptas Turbo Boost
during their Scout move?
A: No [rules change].

See, something that follows precedence and makes sense.

=======================================

ORK.55D.01 – Q: Does a Deff Rolla affect enemy
vehicles? Does a unit that successfully stops the
Battlewagon’s Tank Shock suffer any hits?
A: Any vehicle forced to give way to the Battlewagon
takes D6 S10 hits against the armor value being struck by
the Rolla [clarification]. Any unit that causes the
Battlewagon to stop its Tank Shock does not suffer any
hits [rules change].

Hmm. Glad I'm not using any, since this is a bs rules change directly contradicted by the RAW.

Phil Kelly intended for this to happen, so why are you changing it?

=======================================

ORK.61A.01 – Q: If Zogwort rolls for power
weapon attacks while in close combat, do they
combine with his poisoned attacks (so that he
wounds on a ‘2+’ and ignores armor saves)?
A: Special close combat attacks may not be combined.
The Ork player must pick one to use each round of
combat [RAW].

Funny, this was intended. His higher cost reflects this. Meddling again.

===============================================

ORK.63E.01 – Q: If Zagstruk executes an Ork to
pass a morale check after losing combat is the unit
subject to ‘No Retreat!’ wounds if they are
outnumbered?
A: Yes [clarification].

Same problem here as with the Commissar. The rules don't exist, so why are you adding them?

===================================================

ORK.93I.01 – Q: If a vehicle with a Stikkbomb
Chukka is destroyed (by driving through a
minefield, for example) and its embarked
passengers charge into combat the ensuing
Assault phase do they still benefit from the
Chukka?
A: No [rules change].

More meddling. If Land Raiders weren't invulnerable to minefields, I'm sure this would have been applied to them as well, right?

====================================================

SM.21C.01 – Q: Does the Games Workshop online
rulebook FAQ ruling regarding Deep Striking onto
friendly models also apply to Drop Pods (do
friendly models count as impassable terrain)?
A: Yes, treat friendly models as impassable terrain when
a Drop Pod arrives [rules change].

This is RAW, not a rules change. Drop Pods don't 'Drop' they 'Deep Strike'.

====================================================

SM.24A.01/SM.24J.01 – Q: Can a model be
equipped with both a Space Marine Bike and a
Jump Pack?
A: No, it is one or the other [rules change].

Seriously, someone asked this? Did anyone actually model a bike and a jump pack on a marine? I'd love to see it.

=====================================================

SM.40A.01/SM.40B.01 – Q: If a Land Raider (or
Crusader) is transporting a mix of models in Power
Armor and Terminator Armor; how many models in
total can they carry?
A: The basic Land Raider may transport 10 models total,
the Crusader may carry 15. Models in Terminator armor
count as two models for this purpose. Models in any
other type of armor besides Terminator armor may be
transported and count as a single model [rules change].

Rules change? Since when? This is RAW.

========================================================

SM.49.01 – Q: When Tigirius uses “Fear of the
Darkness”, does the Hood of Hellfire double its
area of effect up to 24 inches?
A: Yes [rules change].

This isn't a rules change, this is RAW.

=======================================================

SW.08A.01 – Q: Can Space Wolves take two
different types of Venerable Dreadnoughts in their
army, one from their codex and others from the
Space Marine codex?
A: Yes [RAW].

I guess I'd have to see a SW player try to take two Ven Dreads.

Since the SM Codex says you can only have 1 ven dread and the SW Codex also says 0-1, where's the RAW supporting this bs?

I don't see any SM trait choices available to SW players.

====================================================

TAU.25A.01 – Q: If a unit with Advanced
Stabilization Systems also has drones, can the
Battlesuit(s) in the unit still use the Stabilization
special rules? Do the drones also gain the
Stabilization benefit?
A: The Battlesuits in the unit may utilize the Advanced
Stabilization System, any drones in the unit do not [rules
change].

This is RAW.

====================================================

TAU.30E.01 – Q: Can mounted Gun Drones on a
vehicle still fire if the vehicle is Shaken, Stunned,
moved over 12” or isn’t allowed to fire its weapons
for any other reason?
A: No, Gun Drones mounted on a vehicle may only fire if
the vehicle is allowed to fire at least one weapon [rules
change].

So where is the rule prohibiting passengers from firing from shaken vehicles for all non-Tau armies? Right, not included. So this is a specific nerf, and just more meddling.

=======================================================

TAU.26F.01 – Q: Can a model with a Drone
Controller take two of the same type of Drone?
A: Yes [rules change].

RAW. The rules for the controller are quite clear on this.

===============================================

TYR.31B.03A – Q: When “The Shadow in the
Warp” is in play are “Perils of the Warp” effects
nullified for the Tyranid player, or just his
opponent?
A: Just his opponent [rules change].

Meddling. The warp doesn't exist for the OTHER player, but Chaos awaits for the Nids? Come on.

================================================

WH.18.01A – Q: Can persistent Psychic abilities
(such as Psychic Scream or Veil of Tears) be
nullified by the Sororitas ‘Shield of Faith’ special
rule?
A: No. See RB.52.07.

I wish Kharn was in my Sisters army, so the rules conundrum caused would explode the universe.

====================================================================

WH.18.02 – If a unit has Multiple
Blasts/Templates and wants to use the Divine
Guidance Act of Faith, how exactly does this work?
A: In this case, the player may determine how many ‘hits’
they will get from their ‘regular’ shooting plus their first
Blast/Template and then decide if they wish to use Divine
Guidance. If the Act is used, the remaining
Blasts/Templates also benefit from it [rules change].

This is RAW. By the way, name the Sisters unit with blasts please.

==============================================

My own question: How do you consider Dark Eldar weapons on vehicles to be mounted? I consider them pintle mounted and can fire in any direction.

================================================

Well, I'm burned out reading all of that.

I guess my problems are this:

Not following GW precedent.
Meddling in really silly gak.
Not making rules changes across the board.
Answering way too many stupid player/asshat player questions/power gaming attempts needing deflection.

I hope you don't take any of this personally, yak. It isn't aimed at you or anyone in particular.

The reason for an FAQ list is to answer frequently asked questions no matter how stupid they may be.

If players keep asking these questions it means the official published sources do not clarify them properly.

The purpose of the list is to provide answers. You may disagree about whether the answers are RAW or clarification or changes, however the point is they are specified so players can be sure they are all playing to the same rules.

If anybody is worried about the Adepticon FAQ being biased, they probably haven't travelled to an RTT with a wicked "homer" advantage. You know, the kind where the Judge (who also is playing) will pretty much rule however his buddies want, even if you're showing them text in the rulebook otherwise. Obviously Adepticon has always had better judges then the guys at "Bubba's Gamin' Shack," but a judge can only make decisions based on 1) what he knows about the rules, and 2) what he feels is fair.

Because of this, as a gamer who wants to know what kind of rulings to expect, it's better to get potentially bad news up front then later. I don't think you'll find anybody who agrees with 100% of these rulings. I don't think you'd find anybody who agrees with 100% of the rules!

More than anything else, the willingness of Yak and the others to explain the document and amend it based on feedback shows it's purpose: not to nerf armies they hate, but provide the most consistent judging possible.

my feeling on this is pretty simple i do appreciate the effort that went into this but i do see alot of these changes are made by "your" personal opinions and not neccesarily based on the rules

secondly as adepticon is a "official" gw tournament as its part of the tournament series how do you think you can make rules changes for this event? i would think that gw would have something to say about this have they been notified of this

if they have please provide the response so that is is out in the open like you have done so far so everyone can see their response

now to answer the long winded poster nitpicking your entire faq and his seemingly superior stance that he knows everything yet he asked a dumb ass question himself i quote

" ELD.24C.01 –
Q: If an Eldar unit finishes its fall
back move within 12” of a friendly Avatar (or he
moves within 12” of a unit that is falling back)
does the unit immediately regroup?
A: Yes, the unit immediately regroups but does not make
a consolidation move [rules change].

Since this breaks the RAW, why are you doing this? The Avatar is not a Synapse Creature.

I don't see you giving this wonderful ability extension to other armies with similar abilities, so this just looks like meddling.


hey einstein the eldar avatar makes any unit within 12" of him fearless thats why...they immediately regroup and have counted as having moved since they are not space marines

the only problem i see with this is what if the unit is below half? how can they regroup since they unit is not allowed to regroup under the rules normally?

Stelek: A lot of the points you have a problem with being included are straight out of the YMDC section. Yes, people really argue about all of this crap. Can it hurt to have it clarified? Do we need a point by point run down of things you think shouldn't be clarified?

I can't respond for every nitpick, but a lot of it is just misinformed rage at nothing. The following as examples:

-Anything dealing with mystics deserves clarification. Particularly when dealing with drop pod assault.

-Kharn's psychic power nullification transfers to his unit because selecting his unit for psychic attack is essentially selecting Kharn as well, which nullifies the power. No transfer of ability is necessary.

-Psycannon rules state that 'only armor saves may be taken', so clarifying for cover saves is fine.

-Callidus has the C'tan phase sword, which sounds a lot like a CCW to me. So the question is relevant to the # of attacks.

-People have claimed that open topped status of drop pods allowed for assault from them on the turn they disembark. This clarification is necessary.

-Heavy weapon team basing is also a big gray area. Clarification is welcome.

-No Retreat! applies to all units who are immune to morale checks or *automatically pass them for some reason*.

-Assigning unit ownership to downed necrons is a big change that is really just plain necessary for monolith teleportation. Clarification is welcome.

-Tank shocks that hit equal AV stop 1" away from the target. Why would you expect the Deffrolla to work if you can't contact the target model?

-Fear of the darkness doesn't have a specified 'range' as is defined for weapons and other powers. It does have an area of effect, and doubling that with the rod of hellfire does constitute a rules change.

-Drones fire as part of the vehicle they are attached to. They are treated as passengers only for disembarking and vehicle damage.

-Tau Wargear restricts taking duplicate items, drones are wargear. The clarification is necessary and welcomed.

stelek wrote:BA.26C.04 – Q: Do Inquisitorial Mystics allow free
shots at units arriving by Drop Pod?
A: Yes. The shooting is resolved after the Drop Pod lands
and the passengers disembark. Either the Drop Pod or
the disembarked unit may be the targeted, but not both
[rules change].

Why are you overriding the GW rules in this instance? Both are seperate units, and eligible to be shot at.

This is exactly the type of stuff I am trying to point out. Meddling with and gimping units that hardly need to be gimped.

stelek wrote:DH.18E.01 – Q: Do Psycannons ignore cover
saves?
A: No, just invulnerable saves [rules change].

This is *NOT* a rules change. This is the RAW.

Exactly what "donkey-cave" did you crawl out of? How can you possibly hold, let alone defend, this assertion? Your understanding of RAW must be seriously flawed.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The other rulings Stelek calls out as "meddling" I agree with, and detailed them further in my last reply. For instance, why specify that a Neural Shredder can cause instant death on Leadership 4 targets? This makes your rulemaking look silly, and is just plain wrong. Instant Death has nothing to do with a Neural Shredder's effects.

@Yak--You never commented on my alternate ruling for guardian platforms, or the wisdom of basing your rule changes on "the way most players play." Most players I've met do not assume that an imperial guard weapon team member takes over the weapon if the actual gunner dies to torrent of fire, or mind war for that matter. And yet this is what you ruled, changing the mechanics of playing against Guard considerably. This type of meddling is frustrating, especially when you rule to the benefit of certain armies, without "player consensus," (as with guard weapon teams) and against other armies, such as with your psycannon ruling. Consistency, I would think, is more important in a rules document than "what the majority of player play," which you have no basis of determining, and thus becomes "what our little biased committee wants." So you see why people can get a little worked up over this.

And, pray tell, how would basing a FAQ off of RAW, create an unworkable FAQ, when you outline GW's RAW policy (codex overrides rulebook, etc) and the "Permissive" nature of the 40k rules as precedents for resolving rule ambiguity (such as tank shock into a combat)...

DyneDenethor wrote:I've gotta support the Adepticon Council Members who helped write the FAQ. As a former Adepticon council member/tournament judge, I have always had faith in their integrity and dedication to putting out a fair ruling, otherwise I would have never agreed to be a judge.
Dan B (DyneDenethor)

Nobody is questioning the awesomeness of the event, or the efforts put in my judges and organizers. However, "fair" is not a word I would use to describe some of their rulings. Just because you're writing up a FAQ beforehand doesn't mean you should throw considerations of "fairness" out the window, which is exactly what they have done--intentionally--on some of these rules.

A decision reached by consensus does not automatically make that decision right.